Trans women are still women 2nd thread

No, I think they’re suggesting I don’t need a children’s specialist.

I don’t believe men (or trans women) need a gynaecologist either.

What?

What I was asking was whether you personally think the hospital is saying you personally are a potential sex offender, when they don't allocate you a bed on the children's ward?

I was talking about men’s spaces at that time, not women’s. I’m not sure why @SleeplessInWhereverassumed I was talking about rapists.

But if my partner is just an average guy who’s not raping and killing anyone, then he’s not the reason for the separated spaces so there’s no value getting his opinion on the impact of that changing.

Ignoring the slightly worrying 'if' in that sentence, I'll assume that your partner is in fact a nice guy who doesn't go around raping and killing, SleeplessInWherever. In that case he is the very kind of man women don't have to worry about, because he wouldn't dream of using the women's toilets, because they are the women's toilets, and he being a decent bloke, respects that.

To that extent, although he isn't the reason for separated spaces for women, he is a valued supporter of separated spaces for women because he respects them.

If all men were nice, respectful blokes like your partner, we wouldn't be having a discussion about 'policing' or 'enforcing' women-only spaces. We could just trust men to do what they have done for yonks - stay out of women's toilets.

That's such a simple solution because it makes it easy to spot that a man in the women's toilets is by his very presence not one of those nice respectful men, like your partner is.

He has a right to have a say on whether women use men’s spaces, in the same way that he doesn’t get a say on whether men use women’s spaces. It’s got zero to do with raping anyone, it’s an odd pivot. We’re not all the same person here, maybe don’t mix up different people’s posts?

It’s just different types of specialist doctors tbh. My SIL is a paediatric nurse, she obviously has general medical knowledge but I’ll be honest - it’s the kids I’d ask her about.

It was in response to someone saying “when men are raping and killing us, if there’s one sex that should have ring fenced spaces then then it’s women.” (That is paraphrased)

You then said to ask my partner.

I didn’t make that clear in my response to you.

But if my partner is just an average guy who’s not raping and killing anyone, then he’s not the reason for the separated spaces so there’s no value getting his opinion on the impact of that changing.

Please explain how we can tell which men/transwomen are dangerous, before they've harmed someone? Spoiler alert, we can't. That's why we lump people into groups.

Are you offended that you can't stay on the children's ward, if you go into hospital? Do you think the hospital is trying to say you're a potential sex offender, if they don't put you in with the children? Or do you understand that they can't tell beforehand which adults might harm children so all adults are kept out?

I’m grouping “trans women” with men, not with violent men specifically. Do you see the difference?

I didn’t make any such “insistence”, thanks. I made it clear that I don’t consider it my job to ensure single sex spaces for men. They are perfectly able to advocate for themselves, and I broadly support them. But I don’t actually have an issue with it either way.

The comment about raping and murdering was just odd.

None of your husbands do nice things, right? God forbid a man isn’t a rapist or murderer and actually behaves reasonably.

I didn’t bother answering, because tbh your insistence on either everyone having single sex spaces or just women having them, hinges on believing that all men are dangerous or have the potential to be - and I don’t believe that.

I don’t believe that trans women should be grouped in with men who are violent, because many of them aren’t.

There are dangerous men, and there are members of the trans community who have a seedy motive. But quite why everyone else has to be grouped in with them, I don’t know/understand, and I’m yet to encounter anyone who can make that seem reasonable in any way.

Possibly he's still reeling from the revelation that if some accident or injury should befall him and he is no longer able to shepard women through crowded places or put the bins out, he'll cease being a man.

Either that, or he's too busy laying his cloak over puddles for ladies to walk on maybe.

Just wanted to clarify that we only advocate for single sex spaces for the one sex

A I speak for myself no one else, I am also not advocating for single sex spaces for just one sex
B when it comes to you and me there is no ‘we’

And when I suggested asking her partner if he was comfortable with women in men’s spaces I got a nonsensical response. Fine for him to weigh in on women’s rights as if we care what random men think, but not his own? Odd.

Actually everyone here is advocating for all men to use the men’s toilets, and if they (the transwomen type) don’t like it to go and build their own. It’s what women had to do in the late 19th century, why can’t these men do the same? We aren’t their support props.
It strikes me as pure entitlement and laziness. Shock horror they’d have to put in a bit of work themselves.

Obviously single sex places are best….but you don’t seem to like that 🤷🏻

Right

well done sleepless

i am now firmly on the side of males including transwomen being in the male toilets and no working towards 3rd or 4th spaces as you reckon its too difficult

That’s obviously complicated by the fact that still doesn’t offer everyone a sex based space

well yeah but so did your ‘lets make everything mixed’ scheme

Right you are not discussing in good faith.

You said what if there are only 2 spaces and no room for more, and got the answer, in that case it's women's and mixed. Then you said 'Ha! So you only care about women having single sex spaces!' like that's some kind of clever gotcha. It's not.

Women are at greater risk in mixed spaces than men are. That's established fact. Women are 9 times more likely to be assaulted in a mixed sex space than a single sex space https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html This isn't a theoretical risk, or a risk of being looked at funny, it's actual women being harmed. That is why, if there's only room for one sex to have a single sex space, it has to be women, not men. It's nothing to do with female supremacy or whatever silly idea you're trying to make work here, it's real women being harmed who wouldn't have been harmed if there was a single sex space.

Or alternatively, transpeople could respect both men and women who need a single sex space, and stop trying to take them away.

What? You’re making no sense at all.

He’s never started murdering or raping women, so I’m not sure how helpful to this conversation about the implications of that he would be.

Fully agree, and I don’t really use the term where I can help it. I would only use it in inverted commas.

The argument about women's single sex spaces being for biological women only is over.

So biological women may use the women's toilets, biological men may use the men's toilets. People with disabilities, and ONLY people with disabilities, may use the accessible toilets. That's clear enough, isn't it?

But apparently not - what about 'third spaces' ?- I'll go along with the term 'third spaces' but in fact it should be FOURTH spaces, accessible spaces are the third space, legally required under the UK Equality Act 2010 and Building Regulations Part M

What seems to be emerging from the UK SC ruling is a groundswell for these 'third spaces': we must rally round the deprived trans community to provide them with 'third spaces'.
And instead of turning their wrath on us gloating old bigots, the trans community are being encouraged using their energy to campaign for 'third spaces'.

Why?

As SleeplessInWherever correctly points out, many building are not equipped for a 'third space'.

The census figures for the number of trans people in the UK are disputed, but figures like 262,000 or 0.5% seem to be accepted. That is a very tiny 'tiny minority', as everybody describes the trans community, even the trans community.

So what justification is there for the expense and disruption of adding a 'third' [actually a fourth] space to every building - at least every public building - because 262,000 people choose not to pee in the toilet designated for their sex?

No - trans ‘women’ are not women.

I believe we should stop using the term ‘trans woman’ to refer to people who are male. I don’t think transsexuals and transvestites ever considered themselves to actually be women, then the terminology changed and suddenly men were claiming they were no different to an XX woman: hence the phrase, TWAW. It boggles my mind that anyone sincerely believes this. Extrapolating this falsehood justifies men in women only spaces of all kinds, taking women’s prizes, heading up women’s societies, etc.

I think it’s important to reverse the damage done to women’s rights by changing the language back to something that makes it clear what trans identifying people actually are (as ruled in the Supreme Court). Transsexual, trans identifying man or woman, or another description so long as it’s accurate.

That's because we're women. Men are perfectly free to advocate for single-sex spaces where it matters to them.