Is it safety or separation?

I don't know I feel about it all still, I got so burned out on the whole subject I had to leave mumsnet for a while but felt the compulsion to come back.

I go back and forth: yes I think single sex is important but I don't know if I feel like excluding medically transitioning people from them (i.e TW from female spaces and TM from males spaces) is correct because I don't believe most of them are doing any harm and it makes sense if that's the side they're transitioning to. But I also know there ARE some who are and out of safety/dignity I would prefer to keep them out.

I don't know if I think it's right or wrong for a trans woman to share a space with me, I don't have an issue with the odd trans woman using the same toilet as me as frankly as much as people seem to think they're multiplying like rabbits, it's rare I even notice anybody in a toilet I would even think might be trans but I also don't speak for everyone. And I think other spaces and areas are a bit more sensitive.

I don't know why it has to be so difficult.

Quite. A need and a wish. Women are entitled to wishes and preference too.

The job of a women's single sex space is to be inclusive and accessible to all women. Not to exclude, shame, harass and deride women out of it in order to make men happy. Not to provide an experience for men. Not to be a vehicle for men's gender expression.

Are you holding women responsible for men’s behaviour???
“enabling” and “assisting” is not the same as being the perpetrator.

“likely assisted by” where is your evidence for this? It’s just your opinion.

Why are you so determined to make out that women are as much of a danger to other women as men are?

It is simply not statistically true.

Why are you minimising men’s propensity to sexual assault?

I suppose I should be grateful.

He told plenty of lies in his police interview but he never claimed to be female so at least that’s something.

<wry chuckle>

Hmm I am reminded of this quote by an American girl who wants to use the gender neutral toilets in her school:

‘The gender-neutral bathrooms are both horrible and amazing. I am so glad we have them, but they are disgusting, mostly because of the way students treat them. The issue mainly comes from how small and how few they are, and it’s not uncommon that the four small bathrooms are filled with sex, drugs or vaping. We need to address these problems, or the gender-neutral bathrooms will continue to be the most disgusting in the school.
I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.’

Her solution: ‘is converting a bathroom on the other side of each floor into a gender-neutral bathroom. The sex and vaping that is currently concentrated in just four gender neutral bathrooms would be spread between six bathrooms instead.’

I like using these quotes because the latest DfE guidance for secondary schools in this country recommended a ‘gender-neutral’ private toilet on each level like the set up in this American high school.

To be very clear, as long as there is a need for single sex spaces, we should keep them.

Only if and when men's behaviour is such that no woman is threatened, feels unsafe, or even just feels inhibited or marginalised by their presence should we consider they are no longer needed.

I'm starting to wonder if posters who tell us that we silly TERFs should be careful what we wish for come from a very socially conservative (perhaps religious?) family background. That is, they have seen first-hand the subjugation of women by a patriarchy, but they haven't realised that the alternative is not simply a free-for-all in which women accept enormous risks in return for agency and freedom. They don't know that it is indeed possible to set boundaries and expect them to be respected, and that this is not a slippery slope to separatism. Put another way, they don't know much about feminism because they didn't grow up with it.

But that will make people like me collateral damage.

At an individual level yes, but there's also the population level consequence that exactly because women have spaces where men cannot go and activities men cannot witness, those spaces and activities become fetished by men and the act of transgressing those boundaries becomes exciting in its own right.

It is a catch 22. The existence of single sex protections is also part of the reason we need them.

But that need still exists. We can't just get rid of them.

This is of course one possible benefit of adding gender neutral (ie mixed sex) provisions alongside single sex : that if enough female people who don't care about sharing with men (and we know they exist as they come here to tell us) use the gender neutral options maybe female activities that are currently fetishised will become everyday and unremarkable, just as no one finds ankles or shoulders scandalous any more.

Bad behaviour by men is the beginning, middle and end of this sorry debacle

Any groups that exclude male people will result in poor outcomes for female people so therefore don't allow any single sex groups/spaces that exclude the male people who demand access.

This is a version of 'you made me do it!'.

In this version it is 'you excluded me, you made me treat you poorly! you shouldn't have had a space without allowing me to be in it'.

Sounds a lot like an abuser's reasoning to my mind because, of course, there is a power difference between female people and the male people who have the power who use this type of argument.

The answer that this should always be 'no, you are still not included'.

Exactly.

If men being excluded from some things means they treat women badly, those men who would behave like that need urgent intervention.

Quite.

How about they just obey the law.

I just read back. We are now being told it is for our very own good to not have single sex 'spaces' (ie those not needed strictly for safety) because it means that male people will treat women badly.

You cannot make this up.

This is a form of absolutism, I think. No one has said that all spaces/groups should be segregated by sex. That could be considered a valid discussion point for 'separatism'. Yet, no one is arguing for that.

However, the warning that any spaces/groups that exclude male people may increase male people's poor treat of female people is dire. This is absolutism and catastrophisation. The argument is basically saying that any groups that exclude male people will result in poor outcomes for female people so therefore don't allow any single sex groups/spaces that exclude the male people who demand access.

Gosh..... how about male people just don't negatively discriminate against female people where it is illegitimate and stay out of any female single sex provision.

It really is not that hard. No need to wheedle, threaten, anything. Just respect female people and their needs.

It is a good point. But in my mind 'attraction' suits the posters I had in mind.

I am very happy to add that though to the list. It could be a very long list, we could be here for a while.

I think "compulsion" might be a more accurate term than "attraction".

For at least some of these men, I think they can no more stop posting here than they can give up their "woman" persona. It's all linked.

Here is the other issue about using "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" as being in any way 'meaningful' to categorise a person's sex class.

What happens when a person with a transgender identity detransitions? Which "psychological, behavioural & cultural" aspects are then changed with this detransition? Belief in their identity changes. What else?

So why the fuck are we being told that "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" is in any way a meaningful method for categorising a person's sex class? Someone's transgender identity can change. Someone's "psychological & behavioural" profile changes over time too. Sometimes it changes due to illness.

And yet, we are seeing it wheeled out as some kind of 'fact' to categorise people for single sex provisions, even groups? Really? Is that really what this whole discussion has been about?

Because I couldn't give a fuck if a male person, who has someone else's criteria of stereotypical 'female' interests, attitudes and behaviour, wants to join a group that is for female people only. That male person should go find a mixed sex group and be who he wants to be there. That male person's interests, attitudes and behaviour are irrelevant when the group is for female people only.

Because I can assure people that "psychological & behavioural" profile of my parent with dementia changed considerably ... yet... they did not change sex and they would not have been excluded from any single sex space or group for their sex. Changeable factors are not abiding 'facts'.

There is no way to philosophise this categorisation method into being a 'fact'.

It was quite freeing really when I realised that these men can never be made to show any consideration for women, so there’s no point fretting about it.

by definition they have extremely disordered thinking about women. I’m a stranger on the internet, I can’t change that.

They are free to believe whatever bollocks they like. And that’s good and right. we have to ensure that there are laws and social consequences in place to control any disordered behaviour that may arise from their disordered thinking.

exploring their weird views with them on here is also helpful, for the purposes of ensuring that as many people as possible understand what these men are like

Well the qualities you ascribed to women in the other thread yesterday were "very feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual".

How many of these qualities do you think Karen White, Isla Bryson and Katie Dolatowski, who are currently behind bars for rape and sexual assault, or Sarah Jane Baker, who served 30 years in prison for kidnapping, torture and attempted murder, possess?

Let's not forget though, that for some those male people who post on the feminist boards to argue they (or other male people) should be treated as if they are female, the very act of posting here is part of the attraction. That act of posting, knowing that they are posting on what is predominantly a female space, is a major part of the attraction. That they come and post with misogynistic views adds to the experience. I suspect it is even better when they maintain that they are female posters. Remember the midnight misogynist posters.

Being a male person telling female people what to do and feeling like they are shaping female people's reactions must be a very attractive thing.

Of course we know that for some male people accessing female people's spaces is all about doing so knowing that there is little that the female people in that space will do to remove them. It is an act of intimidation and it is abusive.

There are many reasons for male people to ignore female people's boundaries. And I am yet to see one valid reason why it is of benefit to women and girls to allow these male people to let even one ignore those boundaries.

And yet you still can't tell me a single commonality that I share with Karen White or explain why you think that means he should be allowed to use the same toilets and changing rooms as me when he is eventually released from prison.

Yep very much so. The women usually make reference to opposing arguments even if it's to disagree. The men just groundhog day with the same old assertions like all the times the opposing arguments have been made directly to them on previous threads hadn't happened.

I’ve been pondering this thread all morning. It’s irked me that the desire for women to have spaces away from men is described as “separatism” and some on the thread have said they’re fine with men around.

It just boils down to the fact we want the choice to have spaces apart from men. And if something is slated as women only it means just that.

Start all the mixed sex groups you want for all sorts of things. That’s fine and desirable. No one here wants ALL spaces to be single sex.

And when it comes to toilets and healthcare and prisons etc, when women are at their most vulnerable, then absolutely they should be separated.

It’s always interesting reading posts by men who enjoy role playing as women arguing for their continued access to women’s spaces (and by extension to the women within them). They have a different character to posts by women who argue for men in women’s spaces because they see themselves as trans allies or because they identify as trans.

while both sides of the coin are inherently irrational, the men simply cannot be reasoned with, while maintaining an air of superiority. They display no empathy for women, and almost invariably no awareness that women are real people even. The posts themselves tell you everything you need to know about why women still need single sex spaces.

These men can see nothing beyond what they want. Thank goodness the law is there to control them