What do we want, do we really, really want??

Female only spaces, for instance in schools and colleges (and in convents) have often been very positive for women, giving them a chance to grow and expand and flourish in a way that they couldn't in a mixed-sex environment.

Thing is, it's a zero sum game ultimately.

@SerafinasGoose "The above points are moot, however, because in a free society people are at liberty to dress as they choose. And were that to change, you can bet your boots women would be the first ones to suffer."
I don't think it's as clean cut as that.
There was a man in London (don't know if he's still around) who spent years being remanded in custody and released until he stripped off butt naked around the corner, was arrested and again remanded in custody.
And on the other point, if society were to become more libertine it would also be women who are the first to suffer. I'm very glad male people aren't allowed to strip naked in public, I know exactly what many blokes would do with that liberty. I feel exactly the same way about male people in closely tailored, calf length pencil skirts. Yes, some men will just feel happier naked / wearing the pencil skirt. Other men will enjoy being close to women while displaying their semi, getting even more enjoyment from the fact that she'll be considered an out of touch prude who isn't up with mod mores if she expresses her discomfort and distress.

I realise I am very late to this conversation and have not read the full thread.

Having read backwards, I agree with most of the summary although I'm not a big fan of 'modest dress'.

I want children not to be exposed to gender ideology by activists at school or when seeking health provision - physical or mental.

Other beliefs are not permitted to be pushed onto children in health or education settings by teachers, so I have no idea why this one belief is.

I don't think it's possible to do much if parents believe in gender ideology and push it onto their children, but I think it's made worse if health/education also affirm this position.

For adults and children I want freedom of belief, where that belief is allowed to be openly (but politely) stated and people can not be forced into compelled speech in court, in school or in work.

I want protection of all same sex spaces that have previously been provided because the need was clearly understood to exist for fairness, safety, dignity or health provision.

I want gender stereotypes to get in the bin where they belong.

Nonsense. We had strict segregation in prisons, single sex wards etc in the past and, for the most part, in public toilets due to a social contract that’s now broken.

I’m not talking about total sex segregation for all purposes as in Afghanistan for example!

I suspect those trying to complicate this. I believe it’s very simple. Exclusion of all males from places where women are in a state of undress or otherwise vulnerable and you will reduce substantially the opportunity for violence and sexual harassment.

the harms are coming, not from the mere existence of the religion, but from the fact that it has become our state religion. People are punished for denying its tenets, for refusing to follow its rules, for mocking, satirising, or criticising it, and for subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. This needs to stop. But we don't need state-enforced non-belief either.

Absolutely. It should be like belief in fairies, flying saucers etc. Fine if that’s your thing, you have the right to believe what you like. But don’t expect anyone else to agree or even to pretend they respect your views.

Strict segregation of sexes historically and in countries where its still practised now, has not been positive for women.
I think its more complicated than you portray.

Any society that valued women would understand all of this easily. Why it’s acceptable to continue as we are- for example, with rapes and sexual assault happening daily in our schools and hospitals is beyond me. It’s not beyond the wit of ‘man’ to put safety measures in place. There’s just no will to do so.

When I say single sex, I mean it. Birth sex. It would be a criminal offence to access a single sex space if not belonging to that sex, regardless of ‘sex change’.

it’s about respecting everyone’s beliefs and safety. It would be essential to have single use facilities too to accommodate gender questioning people.

I don’t believe in exclusion except in the circumstances I mentioned where biological differences are facts and influence the safety privacy and dignity of women and children. So fair enough to stick to existing presumption in favour of inclusion in other situations.

So many thoughtful, useful comments on here. Many different viewpoints being intelligibly expressed, and debated, as they should be.

Repealing the GRA is essential, in my view, because no law should enshrine a lie. Anything stemming from that fundamental lie is deliberately dishonest and therefore unsound.

But it seems to me that the harms are coming, not from the mere existence of the religion, but from the fact that it has become our state religion. People are punished for denying its tenets, for refusing to follow its rules, for mocking, satirising, or criticising it, and for subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. This needs to stop.
This is so true

I think we would get much forwarder by campaigning more generally for modest dress in formal settings.
I think "modest" is risky. Because historically modesty has different connotations for men than women and policing womens clothing is a serious problem (the most egregious example being the burka).

I think more that orgs should have a workwear policy that all have to comply with. Modesty shouldn't come into it.

If women want to excluse men just for shits and giggles, that's their right to do so. One man impacts all the women in the group. They shouldn't have to write an explanation of why and refer to laws to just stay a woman only group.

Like now. Just make it clear if woman includes or excludes trans women, exclusion of transwomen needs to be necessary and proportionate.

This is why the essay is good. This bit is about equality, not belief.

This is my opinion and I don't really want to get into a fight about it so may not answer further questions.

I haven't been on MN for that long, but was on another platform where the same issues were discussed until the owner decided we were evil and that the whole place would be closed down unless we left, so we did, and some of us came here (some were already members in good standing). For some reason at least one of the people who stayed in the old place still refuses to accept that we were expelled. The comfortable lies people tell themselves are a bit sad to witness.

Anyhow, I've been a feminist since my early teens, women are women and have female bodies, men are men and have male bodies, anyone can wear whatever they want, it doesn't change their sex and if it shows them up as fetishists so be it, I remember PIE and page 3 and a lot of creeps, I remember legal discrimination on pay and rights, I was always a Union member and often a branch activist, some of the stuff that Germaine Greer wrote that seemed exaggerated when I read it ca 1974 now seems horribly true and still unchallenged.

And I remember how we laughed when a few prissy individuals started to use the word 'gender' as though it was a synonym for sex, some time in the 1980s. How weird they seemed (both of them, only two women, the first time I heard a man suggest doing this - on a form he was drawing up - was in 2003).

Gender is and always has been a nonsense word in the context of human behavior and should be retired.

How would Single gender services be advertised?

This is complicated. What does "uni gender" mean? And how in practice would you ensure someone who is very very unhappy with being identified as their birth sex had access to the service? Surely this solution is in effect saying "regardless of how you identify you are your birth sex so either use that service or nothing". The consequence of which is trans identified people being excluded.

This is the inverse of the scenario with Edinburgh rape crisis where women are excluded if they are unhappy that the service also includes trans women and therefore a set of women can't get support.

This is part of the reason I'm not as hard line on it. For things like medical treatment, counselling services, sports I can see that exclusion of trans people is necessary and so yes, they have to swallow it.

For social groups and networking type groups, I don't think the case for exclusion stacks up. I'd prefer to say either mixed sex or single gender as that enables trans people to access society in the same way as non-trans people.

There should be a legal directive ie it should be mandatory for single sex spaces in any situations where biology or safety are paramount.

Most people agree with this, but some believe that it is possible to change sex, or someone can become close enough to the desired sex that they need to be treated as if they are.

The problem is that once we call men she, given them female id, and treat them as if they are women in some situations, how do we establish when they arent women and how do we police that?

There should be a legal directive ie it should be mandatory for single sex spaces in any situations where biology or safety are paramount. Therefore, where there’s shared hospital accommodation, changing rooms, lavatories, sports where biology matters. Very limited exceptions permitted in law eg fine to have single person and enclosed sink facility useable by anyone one at a time; exceptions for genuine situations , where security is increased etc.

No person providing personal services where the customer may be in a state of undress (such as waxing etc) should be required to accept any customer at all; it should be a matter for their complete discretion. Female Prison guards etc not obliged to search persons of the opposite sex.

In an ideal world, I'd also like to go further and mandate only female medical staff and carers for women and children in mental health inpatient facilities- men must be chaperoned by law when attending such patients. Breach would be a criminal offence. This would practically eliminate the rampant sexual abuse of such patients and cut down on all the costs and misery of the claim/ complaint process.

Finally, make safety of women an internal part of the planning process. Councils and builders seeking planning permission must be obliged to consider lighting, avoidance of dark alleyways, security cameras etc.

I've been on here "forever" too. There has always been debate and analysis about feminist views. Even quite (at times) heated disagreement. Indeed it's one of the reasons MN feminism has such a positive reputation.

Women are allowed to debate their opinions and where their views sit, without it meaning they've "forgotten". It could just mean they disagree with some elements or want to discuss the implications of some elements. MN FWR isn't a hive mind with a single approved view.

I think the thread is interesting and useful, clavinist did a great job of framing it.

Calling women who have be thinking about this and seeing the progression of trans ideology authoritarian this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what she outlined in the OP.

I've been on MN forever, and i feel like we are forgetting the last ten years of discussion here and the last ten years of what has happened in real life.

Comments here seem to believe that we can establish boundaries where men can be treated as if they are women in certain situations, and women and children will not be effected and those boundaries will not be erroded. Its not worked in the last ten years, so what will be different now?

Things that seem like insignificant compromises - like allowing passports to be changed, or preferred pronouns to be used have had an impact on safeguarding. How do employers know the sex of an employee when the id used states a desired sex, not the real one? How do we explain to young children that that man is a man but we call him she out of politeness, but we should treat him as the same risk as any other man, not a woman.

How can we tell children that, no, the feeling they have arent that they are born in the wrong body and they don't need drugs and surgery when we fund men to use drugs and surgery and then call them 'she'?

Calling women who have be thinking about this and seeing the progression of trans ideology authoritarian, while questioning why we shouldnt use preferred pronouns and including some men in womens spaces is naive at best. Its forcing gender on society by stealth.

A white-only group would be different, because there, preserving the power differential is the sole point of the group's existence.)

@theilltemperedclavecinist That’s it! Thank you. So pithily put.