Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is it safety or separation?

660 replies

OneFlakyMaker · 20/09/2025 05:54

When opposing transgender people in women's spaces, are you looking for safe spaces or separate spaces?

They may overlap but are not the same thing, and while a lot of the discussion is focused on safety, the tone and some arguments hint that addressing safety won't be enough for many people to feel comfortable. Instead, a place without males is sought.

I read one woman described it "At the club we used the women's bathroom to get a break from interacting with men".

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:40

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:38

I don't know them personally so how would I know?

They're male and they exhibit stereotypically male behaviours. Karen White has been convicted of a crime only men can commit. You can Google them both.

What do they have in common with women, please?

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 10:39

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:36

It might be "besides the point" to competing rights like sports & private spaces but its certainly not besides the point in terms of the legitimacy of trans people existence.

That some can't bring themselves to acknowledge these two separate issues gives credence to suspicion on what the real problem is.

I have never said that trans individuals do not exist. They do. But the definition of what they are (trans individuals) does not mean that they are anything other than their natal sex.

They are still not entitled to enter the single sex spaces of the opposite sex.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:38

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:36

Here's a suggestion. Perhaps @FlirtsWithRhinos could agree to answer your question after you've answered my question about what commonality you think men like Karen White and Sarah Jane Baker have with women.

I don't know them personally so how would I know?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:37

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:36

It might be "besides the point" to competing rights like sports & private spaces but its certainly not besides the point in terms of the legitimacy of trans people existence.

That some can't bring themselves to acknowledge these two separate issues gives credence to suspicion on what the real problem is.

Trans people's existence is as legitimate as everyone else's.

Their claim to be the opposite sex is not. It's a lie.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 10:36

On a practical level it is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate in a way that protects women and girls and includes the indefinable quality of males who believe they are women.

All legal definitions need to be definable by third neutral parties.

This can not be based on what people wear or the adornments they wear, because there are times where the presence of a naked penis is precisely the problem.

We can go round and round forever on this, but ultimately it comes back to this point.

In law we CAN NOT legislate that a man is whatever he says he is and impose his identity on a collective of women, but women can not define their own identity and their collective identity and claim it's equality. Why? Because it's sexist. It is that simple.

If we believe in equality, and this is the stick we are beaten with to enable this shit, then this is a total oxymoron. It is not compatible with this principle.

If we believe in fairness before the law, then we have to have observable definitions that are neutral and a third party can reference and draw from in order to judge the situation without prejudice. The idea that a man can just say he's a woman but a woman can not go 'thats a man because I can objectively observe he's a man' is a total legal nonsense.

Again in all these arguments about how it's unfair to transwomen and how very dare we speak this, we never ever get past the practicality of this.

Instead now we are getting this push back against single sex provision from people who don't like this saying the law is not workable! The irony is palpable. It IS workable, they just don't want to observe it or challenge where appropriate because they get the whiney screams of those who don't like it and don't want to respect the opposite sex and principles of consent.

Honestly, if you don't want to observe the law campaign properly to change it, but keep on mind you have to come up with some none sexist legal definitions which fit with existing laws on sexual harassment and voyeurism. You know this practical legal stuff, rather than rabbiting meaningless word salad that collapses at the slightest attempt to poke it with practical real world test cases - you know those bloody awkward ones where creeps and pervs seek to find loopholes in the system to exploit. The law is the vanguard against these people first - you can't just ignore them and pretend they don't exist because they don't fit your narrative or your stereotypes! You can't disavow them as not being 'proper' because it doesn't suit you agenda!

You have to come up with a practical argument that offers women protections that are as good or better than single single provisions, rather than saying that there is an acceptable level of collateral damage of women to benefit men, otherwise that's against the human rights of women and is a role back on their existing rights.

Males who say they are female still have rights and protections. But that has to be balanced with the rights and protections of women. It is not for women to sacrifice themselves to accommodate males at their own expense.

TRAs never ever get past this point, to be able to start a meaningful debate that is in the interests of women to indulge.

Come back solutions to these practical level issues and we'll talk. Until then.

Tough shit.

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 10:36

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:30

So you won't answer the question. Its inconvenient isn't it?

Just remember, omission is as good as lying….

I answered you.

You have ignored me. Again.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:36

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:30

So you won't answer the question. Its inconvenient isn't it?

Just remember, omission is as good as lying….

Here's a suggestion. Perhaps @FlirtsWithRhinos could agree to answer your question after you've answered my question about what commonality you think men like Karen White and Sarah Jane Baker have with women.

Justwrong68 · 22/09/2025 10:36

Not sure what you’re driving at exactly. Maybe look up “urinary leash”. If you’re imagining discounting male violence, I would say that most women would still prefer spaces away from the male gaze.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:36

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/09/2025 10:10

Most people acknowledge there are generalised differences between the sexes at the level of behaviour and psychology...but that is besides the point.

The point is that sex based differences are rooted in, and reflected in, the body and its biological functions. The reason we have single sex spaces is to acknowledge and respect that these differences put the female sex in a compromised and vulnerable position in relation to males; in certain and specific types of situation in which the body and its functions are highlighted or centred.

Males are generally the more predatory and sexually driven of the two sexes; displaying more paraphillias and fetishes, including voyeurism.

Edited

It might be "besides the point" to competing rights like sports & private spaces but its certainly not besides the point in terms of the legitimacy of trans people existence.

That some can't bring themselves to acknowledge these two separate issues gives credence to suspicion on what the real problem is.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

We've engaged with the question.

The answer to the question is that it doesn't fucking matter.

It doesn't matter whether women are saying no because they're concerned about their safety, or because they don't want trans identifying men to find out about the pillow fights we have in our underwear in supermarkets toilets when they're not present, or because we're horrible transphobic exclusionary meanies.

The only thing that matters is that the answer is no. We don't want to share our SINGLE SEX spaces with any members of the OPPOSITE SEX.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:32

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:03

Ahhhh so you admit to commonality? Progress!

Nope. I have no commonality whatsoever with trans identifying men.

I have less commonality with them than I do with other men, in fact.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:30

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 10:18

No, I'm saying as I always have that your self serving claim that behavioural "commonalities" between the "average" woman and a handful of self selected men, "commonalities" the significance of which is cherry picked by those men regardless of what women actually say about ourselves and our lives, are not an especially meaningful way to group people and certainly not so much more meaningful than physical sex that we can just discard any and all single sex language, rights, protections and dialogue in favour of them, nor anywhere close to being so relevant to the historic and cultural realities of female people that we can use the same word for both.

And either you know this is my position and are deliberately misrepresenting me, or you have totally failed to read my posts.

Either way, after this post you have no excuse to misrepresent me again.

So you won't answer the question. Its inconvenient isn't it?

Just remember, omission is as good as lying….

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:29

Anthophile · 22/09/2025 09:18

Regarding your third paragraph, while I certainly don't believe feminists in the US can't do anything ever about federal rights on abortion or paid maternity leave because their hands are tied, it's true that the US political and cultural landscape is markedly different from that of the UK and any criticism of the perceived ineffectiveness of women's rights campaigns in the US should be viewed through that lens. I assume many are vaguely aware of this, but some may not, so I think it might be helpful to briefly touch on it.

The US is a federal republic of 50 states that sometimes feel like a federation of 50 small countries with starkly different political prorities and cultural standpoints, and the UK's devolution doesn't exactly mirror US state politics.

As long as abortion rights remain a thorny issue for religious conservatives, mostly older (and some younger) Republican voters, securing federal protection for abortion is going to be difficult; Tories, or mainstream UK conservatives, don't really care about making abortion illegal as GOP politicians do. Religious conservatives have vastly more political and financial influence in the US as well.

I'm not saying the UK isn't divided on certain issues, but in the US the division appears to be much stronger not just due to political differences, but cultural views as well; championing individualism at the cost of communitarianism and safety nets might have served the US-style capitalistic growth well, but that also means things that aren't immediately cutting costs and increasing profits, like paid maternity leave, is often considered superfluous and those campaigning for such things are just told to "find new jobs that have paid maternity leave, it's your fault if you don't have it, why should the rest of us care?".

That sort of mixture of individualism and capitalism means women seeking rights on paid maternity leave are left out, again especially in Republican-controlled states where there is not tangible political appetite to push for legal changes. Without somehow getting Republican states and their political representatives on board, federal codification is a tall order.

I'm not saying it's easy, but I would expect there to have been some progress on this over the last generation, and there really hasn't been.

I would have thought that whilst the position in relation to women's rights in the US remains as dire as it is, so called feminists should not have even the smallest amount of bandwidth left over to worry about cross dressing men and their preferred pronouns.

I also think that by fannying around focusing on these luxury beliefs which most ordinary people don't share, they are putting off millions of potential supporters, including women who would obviously like to have sex based rights but don't see what feminism (by which I mean American "feminism" as opposed to real feminism) has got to do with them or how it is relevant to their lives in any way.

If women started voting for a proper, pro women Democratic Party en masse, they would have much more political clout to effect these changes. But that party doesn't exist.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 10:18

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:58

Are you suggesting men & women on average are identical in respect to behavioural, psychological & cultural traits?

Go ahead, shock me by not dodging again….

No, I'm saying as I always have that your self serving claim that behavioural "commonalities" between the "average" woman and a handful of self selected men, "commonalities" the significance of which is cherry picked by those men regardless of what women actually say about ourselves and our lives, are not an especially meaningful way to group people and certainly not so much more meaningful than physical sex that we can just discard any and all single sex language, rights, protections and dialogue in favour of them, nor anywhere close to being so relevant to the historic and cultural realities of female people that we can use the same word for both.

And either you know this is my position and are deliberately misrepresenting me, or you have totally failed to read my posts.

Either way, after this post you have no excuse to misrepresent me again.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 10:15

Theswiveleyeballsinthesky · 22/09/2025 10:08

i continue to assume Hows is a deep cover GC double agent so well do they do our job for us

Eyeballs, they are a super feminine agent! Unlike us not so super but who like a diverse range of interests and have diverse skills to match type women.

I take it that super feminine also means they possess that super empathy that allows them to see things super clearly when the rest of us don’t.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 10:12

There is certainly a commonality to how female people interact with how society treats them due to them being a group with a particular body. **

Are we still referring to the study that was self selecting, with expectation of potential compensation for that task, and asking for self reflective answers? That may or may not be accurate representations of that person’s traits at all? Answers that may be aspirational rather than rational? Is that what we are discussing ?

** that of having a body formed around the production of large gametes whether the body is producing those large gametes, will or has produced those large gametes.

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/09/2025 10:10

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:58

Are you suggesting men & women on average are identical in respect to behavioural, psychological & cultural traits?

Go ahead, shock me by not dodging again….

Most people acknowledge there are generalised differences between the sexes at the level of behaviour and psychology...but that is besides the point.

The point is that sex based differences are rooted in, and reflected in, the body and its biological functions. The reason we have single sex spaces is to acknowledge and respect that these differences put the female sex in a compromised and vulnerable position in relation to males; in certain and specific types of situation in which the body and its functions are highlighted or centred.

Males are generally the more predatory and sexually driven of the two sexes; displaying more paraphillias and fetishes, including voyeurism.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/09/2025 10:09

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 09:56

No. You asserted. I disagreed. I showed the flaws in your logic and the lies in ypur claims.

You have given no basis for your self-serving belief that "commonalities" of behaviour cherry picked by you should be more relevant than the undeniable commonalities of sex and sex based experiences women share.

We all see that you do not in fact have any real organising principles behind your beliefs. You just twist in the wind grabbing any disjointed assertion that you think will serve your real cause of inserting yourself into female only spaces and concepts.

But at the end of the day, female people exist. We are a material reality in the world and you cannot word-salad that away.

Any argument you make that does not respect that simple fact, the reality of female existence, is easily demolished by the material fact of our existence.

And any argument you make that does respect that simple fact cannot give you what you want.

Give it up mate. What you want is not fair and it's not reasonable. Drill down and it is based on nothing more than the lies men tell each other about women and the social power of men to impose it on to women.

Great post. Poor old Hows still flailing and wailing and refusing to get the message.

Women say no.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 10:08

The mistake that Howse makes is in believing we have to give a remote toss about the feelings of men versus the needs and protections of women and girls.

We do not.

Hurty feelings are legally a lesser consideration in law than harms caused by violence or abuse. So says human rights.

And there endeth any need for further conversation.

Theswiveleyeballsinthesky · 22/09/2025 10:08

i continue to assume Hows is a deep cover GC double agent so well do they do our job for us

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 10:07

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:03

Ahhhh so you admit to commonality? Progress!

I never said there weren’t commonalities of behaviours. I have many typically male hobbies, and I don’t wear dresses or skirts and I have short hair.

however, there is no commonality in terms of sex. And that means that men are not allowed into women’s single sex spaces, and neither are women allowed into men’s single sex spaces.

And that is the law. Men are not allowed into women’s groups.

and the reason for that for me personally comes down to safety. Because, as I’ve said, my violent rape and sexual assault means I need that safety.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 10:05

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 09:56

No. You asserted. I disagreed. I showed the flaws in your logic and the lies in ypur claims.

You have given no basis for your self-serving belief that "commonalities" of behaviour cherry picked by you should be more relevant than the undeniable commonalities of sex and sex based experiences women share.

We all see that you do not in fact have any real organising principles behind your beliefs. You just twist in the wind grabbing any disjointed assertion that you think will serve your real cause of inserting yourself into female only spaces and concepts.

But at the end of the day, female people exist. We are a material reality in the world and you cannot word-salad that away.

Any argument you make that does not respect that simple fact, the reality of female existence, is easily demolished by the material fact of our existence.

And any argument you make that does respect that simple fact cannot give you what you want.

Give it up mate. What you want is not fair and it's not reasonable. Drill down and it is based on nothing more than the lies men tell each other about women and the social power of men to impose it on to women.

Yes. ‘We’ is used correctly here.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:03

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 10:01

No. They’re not identical. Neither are they identical by reference to their sex. The law gives protection on the grounds of sex, not on the grounds of behavioural and psychological traits.

Cultural traits may or may not be protected under law depending on the specific situation under discussion.

Ahhhh so you admit to commonality? Progress!

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 10:03

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:02

Seeeee the conspiratorial thingy I mentioned upthread?

Mate.

Take the hint.

I don't give a shit what you say and what your argument is.

It's bullshit that harms women and girls.

The end.

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 10:03

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:02

Seeeee the conspiratorial thingy I mentioned upthread?

Still ignoring me I see.