I am embracing virtue signalling pronouns in emails

If all the women left and went to a different space, the original space would no longer be appealing, and the second space would become the target. It's the presence of the women in the space that is fundamental to the desire to inhabit it.

Yes, we've seen this happen several times.

My understanding:

A. Gender: society's expectations of a person due to their sex. (girls wear pink and are friendly and caring)

B. Gender identity: personality. (I like the colour green, I am a misanthropist and although empathic, quite lazy)

C. Gender incongruence: Not wanting to do the things that society says I should do because of what sex I am. An incongruence between A and B. (I like the wrong colours, clothes, hairstyles, I am not caring/friendly/girly enough)

Feminists say: That's fine, like what you like, sex has no bearing on personality. Also, if we could do something about male violence, that would be good.

Genderists say: If you have C then your sex is wrong and you must try to change it. Also anyone of the opposite sex must accept you, and make allowances for you.

This latter suggestion is okay until one notes that we are dealing with two sexes, one of which has almost all the propensity and most of the ability for violence and sexual violence, and the other sex has almost all of the vulnerability, including the risk of pregnancy.

For this reason, as well as cultural, religious and reasons of propriety, the female sex has fought to make and keep spaces for their privacy, dignity and safety where they can, say, get changed, receive medical care, attend to bodily functions, etc, in a space free from the males sex. Legally, this is described in the Equality Act.

Now, some people are suggesting members of the members of the less physically powerful and more vulnerable sex are to accept members of the more powerful and more risk-taking and more inclined to violence sex in the spaces reserved for the former sex, because some numbers of the latter sex has C - gender incongruence. (Or at least, says they have C.)

I do have sympathy for those with C. I think A should be questioned and challenged. I think B is about as meaningful as horoscopes and saying the French are hot-headed and passionate.

Most of all, I think women need and are entitled to single sex spaces and rights.

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them. Of course women also have conflicts and emotions, but empathy is not a finite pie, and nor is the alliance in rights for others.

As others have pointed out, it's really not women's job to create an alternative for men who are trying to colonise their space.

But the main problem is, these men actively fight against it. They don't want it.

There are countless incidents of an alternative space being provided, eg the accessible toilet, which are deemed unacceptable.

The reason for this is that it's not about the space. It's about the women in the space.

If all the women left and went to a different space, the original space would no longer be appealing, and the second space would become the target. It's the presence of the women in the space that is fundamental to the desire to inhabit it.

Women are the resource. They are the tools being utilised. Not the four walls and ceiling.

But what if someone does have that conflict? And what if someone finds an individual sense of belonging in a societal group that they are barred from, simply because of a physical attribute?

If this argument were valid, why wouldn't it be applied more widely.
To race for example? Or disability?
Why should physical attributes stand in the way of people's sense of belonging there?

Yet I'm sure you'd find it abhorrent if people wanted to identify as black in spite of their physical attributes.
So why is this different?

The truth is that physical attributes are important to belong in certain groups.
They are defining features of those groups. If you don't have them, you need to construct your own groups or forge an adjunct connection with those groups instead of overriding the criteria for your own needs.

What sense of womanhood?
If you mean you have one then please do explain it. As for (pharaphrasing) biological woman feel differently from other biological woman, then I guess this is in fact personality. What else could it be and how would we ever find out if we feel the same as other biological women?

Trans people will I'm sure fit in with other trans people, theres no shortage of the type at the moment. But assuming they didnt fit in with each other, I'm not convinced that women (cunty type) should just move over and be used as shields. This is not my job, I am not everyone's mother, I dont even want this role, I have enough to do already without taking on the mantel of saviour, shield, supervisor. (Wank fodder)

I have asked many times for someone to describe gender or show me how to find it, because I have no idea what or where it is.seemingly no one else knows either, because not one poster has ever described it in better than stereotype.
It's not just a physical attribute like being too small to high jump, too slow to run 100mt in a respectable time, it's a penis. I do not want that penis in my daughters changing room, toilet, prison, hospital ward , sport, etc.

More like 99.8 % of people are men or women. Even the other 0.2% are chromosomally one or the other.

If transwomen need these sevices then this would be a perfect use of some of Stonewalls enormous resources.

Exactly.

And I do not understand on any level why this is women's job to sort before they can claim back services of their own. Why would that be?

A pertinent example wrt women's spaces is that of rape support services.

Rape survivors want and need a.male free space for obvious reasons. These services were set up for the most part by and for women - the history of the movement is stirring.

If transwomen need these sevices then this would be a perfect use of some of Stonewalls enormous resources.

Instead a woman is told she can't have a single sex space and that she is a bigot for asking.

Who knows, Paul could have written his pronouns tongue in cheek for a dare

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them. Of course women also have conflicts and emotions, but empathy is not a finite pie, and nor is the alliance in rights for others.

@didimum, why is it women’s job to ge flexible and create spaces for TW? Why not get men to be flexible and create spaces for them? Why should women compromise and be kind? What benefit does this bring to women?

You seem to be saying that women (female type, AFAB) can only say no to those who want to encrouch on their already existing resources if they take it on themselves to put alternatives in place

It's akin to saying I can only evict a squatter from my home if I find them existing accommodation first.

Well said!

We have exactly this, when men claim women's toilets, women's shelters, women's services, women's hospital wards, women's sports, women's everything, now belong to men. And TERFs need to go and set up their own stuff!!!

Talk about colonialism. Talk about irony.

Men come to women's resources and take our stuff. Even though it is ours, we created it and we maintained it for years. Now, women's self-built resources are men's to take.

No.

Sorry to leave this hanging, various RL things interceded. I will be back though - so many questions….

You seem to be saying that women (female type, AFAB) can only say no to those who want to encrouch on their already existing resources if they take it on themselves to put alternatives in place

It's akin to saying I can only evict a squatter from my home if I find them existing accommodation first.

This is so important for people to understand.

The squatter analogy is such a great one - I'll be using that myself to try to articulate my thoughts on this topic too.

Let men, and women who are supportive of transwomen, do their own crowdfunding to accommodate transwomen, if it's so important to them. Let men, and their female supporters, fund transwomen's requirements.

Women have enough to be getting on with, at the moment, on funding the stream of very worthy court and tribunal cases, seeking judicial and employment law clarification on where women's rights actually exist, at the moment.

"Be Kind" has worn very thin indeed.

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them.

Who are "we"?

You seem to be saying that women (female type, AFAB) can only say no to those who want to encrouch on their already existing resources if they take it on themselves to put alternatives in place.

It's akin to saying I can only evict a squatter from my home if I find them existing accommodation first.

No. Someone's unilateral expectation that they should be entitled to what is mine does not impose upon me an obligation to either accomodate them or find them an alternative.

Trans and LGBT± charities and groups raise huge amounts of money and have public sympathy. Those are the resources should be put into the creation of spaces instead of that energy being put into demanding that women's resources are appropriated for trans women.

If we have 100 women, at very least 20 of them will be survivors of sexual assault/rape. Very least, probably far more. A large chunk will have experienced CSA. Another chunk will have experience of DV. PTSD is fairly common, as is an involuntary wariness, caution or fear of being in a vulnerable situation with men. How many out of 100 are going to have a trauma response to sharing a space with a male? Seeing a male body, however that male may identify?

Do we think of them? Or of the women who may be Muslim or Jewish, whose faith may preclude them touching or sharing space with unfamiliar males?

So I think it's highly likely the majority will be saying no.

But anyway, we're not talking about numbers, we're using a hypothetical 'one woman'.

Do we listen to the majority, or the one who says no? When we're talking bodily consent and boundaries, no always trumps yes. If one woman says she would have a trauma response to sharing a space with a male, do we respect her boundary, or do we respect the male's wishes more than her boundary?

Why do the males wishes matter more than her distress? Or even, why does a male's distress matter more than her distress?

The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them

Because I'm more interested in women's and girls' rights. They have their own lobby groups, women have their own stuff to do. It's not my issue.

But what is the solution when the boundaries of 100 women to one space are not shared? What woman do we listen to? The majority or the strongest boundary, and why?

We listen to a number of things, one being common sense. It's more dangerous for women and it's a violation of most women's privacy and dignity.

It doesn't disadvantage other women for males to stay out, they might want to virtue signal that they want to be inclusive but it doesn't actually hurt them not to be. It should be on a veto basis where women who don't give consent to males in their spaces are respected, which if you read the Equality Act is the logic the single sex exemptions are based on.

Both of those options could be explored and debated. The strongest IMO btw. Either way, no man, Inc TW, have any right to an opinion.

@PearlClutch

Boundaries are boundaries. By definition, they are limits. If they're seen as 'flexible' then they're not really boundaries, they're a negotiation. Women can say 'no' and it is not the start of negotiations.

But what is the solution when the boundaries of 100 women to one space are not shared? What woman do we listen to? The majority or the strongest boundary, and why?

P.S so tired and off to bed. A lot to think on.

Are you suggesting third spaces? There is a lot of support for those. But TRAs don't want those. Plus it is not women's jobs to create create them.

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them. Of course women also have conflicts and emotions, but empathy is not a finite pie, and nor is the alliance in rights for others.

Who is this 'we' who need to create the relevant spaces for TW? I certainly support those trans people who are trying to do this. Why aren't organisations such as Stonewall engaged in this rather than so much of their energy being put into demolishing women's spaces and services?

I fear the trans community that shout the loudest on media platforms do not represent the true wishes and needs of the larger trans majority. Much like any media platform becomes an echo chamber for those with the most extreme voices. The trans women I know of in ‘real life’ do not wish to be named as true women, they wish to be only trans women - a subset from women, in a world that orders that you define yourself in order to participate in the very basics of day to day life.

You may very well be right, but these loudest voices are the ones that have the ear of politicians, of the media, of educators and of our social institutions and they are actively pushing to reshape society around their ideas. The women (female type, AFAB) who have tried to stop it and found their voices and objections are being at best ignored and at worst demonised.

So if the larger trans majority do not agree with what is being done in their name then they need to speak up and stop it!

What are these 'flexible' boundaries? Are they the preferences and well being of women, by any chance?

Why do I have to put my comfort, safety, dignity, privacy, choices, second to those of a male?

Boundaries are boundaries. By definition, they are limits. If they're seen as 'flexible' then they're not really boundaries, they're a negotiation. Women can say 'no' and it is not the start of negotiations.

Yes, I understand that a male may feel a deeply painful conflict at not having his wants and needs and desires met by women's acquiescing.

I'm afraid that's not my problem. I'm not a support human here to validate the feelings of someone just because they is having a deeply painful conflict.

I'm here for the women who fought for the right to leave the house, fought to overcome the 'urinary leash', fought for equity, fought for the safety, privacy and dignity and the rights of women to say 'no'. The women whose lives are deeply and often painfully circumscribed by their female biology, the reproductive burden, the pain of dv, sexual assault, abuse, harassment, sexism. My daughter's right to privacy and male-free spaces.

That's my focus.

No men in any of the spaces that are important for the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls.

"#Be Kind" really does not work with me any more. We tried that. We gave an inch, they took a mile.

It's all very well, telling women to "Be Kind" to men. But No. I'm not hearing or reading any reciprocal call for men to "Be Kind" to women, and to respect women;s boundaries. So No.