Single sex spaces aren’t just about safety – they are about community

That last paragraph was whiplash!! Fence sitting nonsense imo.

Yeah some of it is a bit like... Women's magazine patronising phrasing (complimenting dresses fml get over it 😆)

But I do like bringing up that women only whatever is great.

I've been on a few women only training/workshops and it's been so so so good, and we all at the end have said how nice it was to not have men about for that.

And now it's impossible to advertise for something similar, unless you want to risk a bloke coming! (Funnily a recent thing I went to which is tacitly 'trans-inclusive' has no blokes joining bcos it's not very trendy haha)

Ive not aren't hat comparison yet!

I see it in relation to how TIMs use things they think happen, and how those men view the idea of giving out a tampon/pad is worth discussion... But am I really alone in having been on both sides of that interaction a few times in my life?

It's not often, sure, and I agree how certain men 'use' it is gross but I don't think it's the same as a wet t-shirt competition 😆

I was in unisex toilets like this in a restaurant today. Pretty nice toilets but when I came out of my cubicle there was a man in the cubicle next to mine, no attempt to have the door closed while he used the toilet.

Third spaces won't work. They are outing and othering. They are transphobic because they don't recognise transwomen are women. Can anyone seriously imagine IW would use a space for a transwoman. This is the person who claimed to have completed their transition and are now a cis female and offered to show their cervix on tv.

Women need spaces away from male born people and male socialisation for safety, privacy and dignity not for camaraderie.

I can only speak for myself. But in my opinion this author has got it entirely the wrong way round when she says we need female only spaces for "joy".

No. We need it for the opposite. When we are feeling pain, grief, fear. We need a space away from leering or curious male eyes.

Joy might be a bit of an OTT way of putting it, but I don't think it's just about pain, grief and fear either. Communities like my guild feel different without men there. Women who have grown up in a society where men are considered more important (i.e. pretty much all women) behave and interact a bit differently when they are in a group which excludes men, especially when they are doing things which would probably be looked down or not valued by men.

You can eliminate queues by passing proper American-style potty parity legislation requiring equal wait-times and hence mandating a higher space provision (from 1:2 to 1:4) in favour of women.

With unisex what you'll get is women still queuing up but (in larger facilities) men just barging ahead obliviously.

Indeed.

'As the new Labour government solidifies their plans for dealing with the issue of women-only spaces, they may feel pressured to choose between one of two options. To either infiltrate women-only spaces or protect them. But another option exists in which the integrity of these spaces is not only maintained but expanded, not only for biological women, but transwomen, too. There is room for women-only spaces and for transwomen-only spaces.

For too long, the goal of single-sex spaces has been reduced to the provision of safety. But this approach has robbed both transwomen and biological women of something just as important: community.' (my bold)

Transwomen can create their own spaces (I believe they have them already in some cases) and women will happily leave them to those spaces.

but I can’t help noticing it’s still all about the males 🙄

...and the transmen get a space too for all their blokey bonding?

What will they write on the doors?

Will there be provision for the 70+(?) other genderties to have their own space?

It a bit ambiguous… I read it as her wanting infiltrate women spaces

it is rubbish what every way you interpret because trans women want in women space and we don’t want them there

My gym has toilets like this. They are regularly cleaned. But still, some men piss all over them.

Mainly it just seems ridiculous to waffle on about female "joy" (in the loos? Really?!) when she's not made any mention of privacy and dignity, which for me would come WAY ahead of any such considerations (and behind safety only). I want my daughter to be able to get changed for sports/swimming or try on clothes without having to see any 🍆, without being ogled by men/boys while undressing, and without any phones coming under the curtain. I don't give a monkey's whether she experiences "joy" at the same time, I mean it'd be nice but ultimately, a changing room is just a changing room... but privacy and dignity should be a minimum expectation!

And I agree the last paragraph is unclear - she does seem to mean she supports third spaces, but doesn't actually express it very well...

Apologies if I sounded negative. I don't think the article is all bad.

The part I probably found most exasperating was the suggestion of third spaces as if it were a viable solution that no-one had thought of before. I'm afraid it cemented my initial view that most FWR posters know more about this issue than the writer does.

But hey, maybe I should be more tolerant - we were all new to this once.

The only positive about making toilets unisex cubicles is there would be no more queuing for the ladies but the design would need to be fully enclosed with decent ventilation in each.

She does at least say, earlier in the article, 'But safety should be the guaranteed starting point, not the goal.' I don't quite see how the goal is that women should share garlic-peeling tips etc. Certain things flow naturally from being in the safety of an all-female group, e.g. being able to talk openly about things, or to be rude about men, or not to think about men at all. Her examples are a bit odd, though.

What I'm trying to say is: give women the all-female, single sex spaces they need & want & enjoy - & then let them get on with it.

Really? These are the last two paragraphs:

'As the new Labour government solidifies their plans for dealing with the issue of women-only spaces, they may feel pressured to choose between one of two options. To either infiltrate women-only spaces or protect them. But another option exists in which the integrity of these spaces is not only maintained but expanded, not only for biological women, but transwomen, too. There is room for women-only spaces and for transwomen-only spaces.

For too long, the goal of single-sex spaces has been reduced to the provision of safety. But this approach has robbed both transwomen and biological women of something just as important: community.' (my bold)

I read it as saying we need third spaces, i.e. transwomen-only spaces, & that it's wrong to see the question as having only two possible answers, either to keep TW out (with nothing else for them specifically) or to allow them into women's facilities which then are no longer single-sex. It seems to me a sensible & compassionate way of looking at the issue, & I agree with PP that adding even one male to an exclusively female group changes it immediately. That's been my experience in a variety of settings.

@Hoosemover no I'm saying that the last couple of paragraphs don't make it clear. It would be really easy to turn it around and say because its not about safety transwomen being women (they're not) should have the right to join in with these bonding and joyous sessions.

You think she gets it than the last couple of paragraphs she totally turns it round to the conclusion that we should allow trans woman into women’s spaces.

When you examine the real reasons (in my opinion) why women need female only spaces, as I've outlined above, then you can see why it is ludicrous to talk about women sharing tips for peeling garlic.

I don't understand the negative reaction here.

I can only speak for myself. But in my opinion this author has got it entirely the wrong way round when she says we need female only spaces for "joy".

No. We need it for the opposite. When we are feeling pain, grief, fear. We need a space away from leering or curious male eyes.

Examples given above include breastfeeding clinics (breastfeeding can often be a time of anxiety and physical pain). Addiction support. Rape survivors' support. Enduring miscarriage. Injury. Trauma.

I'm happy to share my joy with men, sometimes. I'm not willing to share my pain, grief or fear with men. That is when I need privacy and dignity.

Yes, she's picking on Labour party members' use of the phrase "women's safe spaces." And pointing out it's so much more than that.
I think that's a really good thing. Hold the politicians' feet to the fire. Call the TRAs bluff - here, have some trans-women only spaces! I don't understand the negative reaction here.
(And appreciating the commentary of someone from a dreaded right with think tank doesn't mean I suddenly want her preffered economic policies enacted, or that she can't have anything useful to say).

Yeah. Been tried many times.

Only stupid paranoid old bats want privacy from men, and this is bad and they should be forced to expose their bodies and deal with it. Reframe the trauma! (but this applies only to women presenting boundaries to men who want to use them and find their 'no' really bloody inconvenient. Men with interesting identities get what they want and their feelings matter, they don't have to reframe anything.)

And female spaces are a place of community, joy, pillow fights, sharing lipstick, cavorting in babydoll night dresses and expressing the special essence of femininity and how can you deny that experience to men who identify as women?

Ffs. You have to wonder what some people are smoking.

The author works for a centre-right think tank. The Conservatives are no better than Labour when it comes to Women’s Rights.

Labour seems to be moving in the right direction at the moment, in regards to puberty blockers. I wonder how long that will last.

In fairness I've overheard women talking to friends in adjoining cubicles about unexpected periods, leakages etc - just not to random strangers.

But I agree parts of the article feel a bit under informed, e.g. it talks as if it all started with the public consultation and Penny Mordaunt 'around the late 2010s' when surely it was the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Select Committee chaired by Maria Miller in 2016?

Maybe that's pedantic of me but the more I read, the more I felt I knew a lot more about the topic than the writer did.