Is it safety or separation?

It doesn’t matter how public the toilets are or where they are, it’s just how private the cubicle is.

Bears repeating.

I unfortunately know more about this subject than I ever wanted to after researching toilet safety. It makes me feel sick just listing the reports as evidence to reach a conclusion about toilet design.

It is absolutely clear that young children should go into the toilet of the sex of their carer.

It is also absolutely clear that a ‘reason’ for toilets to be unisex should not be so that a male can be afforded more privacy with a girl than a boy. All perpetrators on my list are male. Most in real life won’t even be on my list as to get on it the child has had to tell someone in time for the man to be caught, found guilty and it be published so I can find it. I have also reached a point where I don’t need to add more reports. There’s a clear pattern in design. It doesn’t matter how public the toilets are or where they are, it’s just how private the cubicle is.

Single sex cubicles with door gaps are best for safeguarding - they prevent assaults taking place.

I see the sycophancy as a fawn response - part of the fight, flight, freeze, fawn suite. Which means i have a little more sympathy for women who display it.

It's one of the more enraging parts of all this

Yeah, well we all know that unless paedophiles are given access to children, their paedophilia will get worse.

I have another: a Judge. Some men who have assaulted women have been told they are not allowed to enter women’s toilets because that’s where the assault took place.

The fawning over male people who declare they are female is an observable thing.

They don't really think you are a woman at all

So true. Transwoman friend tells me the school gate mums all confide in him more now. Really? When we're out and about service providers all treat him with the sort of sycophancy I've never experienced as a woman. I suspect the same is happening in his personal life.

Just skimmed your post as have an appointment, so hope I’ve understood - will reread later. Heck yes, No is a complete sentence. No agreement of, heaven forfend, permission(!) needed. But a better understanding - a better capacity to understand, even, in many cases - would save us a lot of time, effort and worry.

Sorry - fast-moving. Reply to Education.

So the list of what is to be used to categorise who accesses single sex spaces is:

behaviour
cultural elements
personality traits
individualism
inclination (or motivation)

We are not to use body formation around reproductive function.

And due to Social Responsibility no female single sex spaces should exist because then male people will not know how to act with respect towards female people.

Did anyone at least pick up that apparently we now have the concession that we CAN have single sex provisions that exclude all male people above about 8 years old if safety is involved? How kind is that?? Maybe that is what super feminine people allow?

Great post but I disagree on the last bit.

It's the law that males aren't allowed into spaces labelled single sex, very clearly. Toilet / changing room providers can choose to only offer mixed sex but it has to be labelled as such. None of the coercive, abusive behaviour of the past that enables men to get their jollies arriving and stripping (or whatever) when unsuspecting women and children are there. (and pretending they 'pass' because the women and children have the natural instinct of fear when encountering a much stronger male body with at least 160% their punch power clearly transgressing boundaries in an enclosed space)

Women have the choice then, whether to used mixed sex or only go to places with single sex facilities. They're consenting rather than unconsenting if they share a mixed sex space. Obviously less fun for the boundary transgressing men which is I assume why third spaces are so opposed.

We don't need Hows to change his mind about women being support humans for men and not deserving of their own human rights. It's a waste of time trying to convince someone with such misogynist sentiments that he's wrong. He's always going to twist things.

It's the law that single sex needs to mean single sex, he's wrong under the law. I don't care what he thinks. No is a complete sentence.

Can we have the proof of personality traits being “biologically influenced” please?

I am looking forward to it.

Or is it going to the the same crap paper drawn from the old self selecting, potentially compensation, self determining survey which couldn’t make any adjustments for what might be an answer based on reality vs self perception vs aspiration?

Reading this thread (and so many others like it, but in this one it’s really very pronounced) is bringing back to me with painful clarity the first time I really experienced misplaced male confidence. It wasn’t arrogance - it was a very dear friend, with a lovely personality, and for whom I felt great affection and respect - but rather this absolute, unquestioning certainty that his own understanding of whatever issue we were discussing was at least few steps or more ahead of my own.

I remember endless conversations in his car - we covered life, the universe and everything together, and I loved this regardless - in which I’d quietly tolerate his assumption that he really needed to explain to me a point I’d addressed with far more nuance whole minutes earlier. So much of each discussion was spent waiting for him to catch up to whatever counter-argument or flaw I’d long since introduced.

I know that may seem arrogant on my part - it feels awkward to put into words, and for this reason I never have before, bar in the frustrated quiet of my own head! - but it was so, so pronounced. And this was someone who was debating in good faith, and genuinely interested in my counter-arguments. It hampered him - but he didn’t realise it.

And over time, it became apparent how very strikingly gendered such behaviour was. There were, absolutely, exceptions to the rule, but so often in conversations with men, I’d find them skimming the surface of an issue with total confidence in their own understanding, helpfully throwing me explanatory lifebuoys to help me access their “level”… while I was already busily engaged in a fascinating deep dive below that surface.

It wasn’t about intelligence, but their subtle gendered preconceptions. Sexism, by any other name.

This thread is so reminiscent of that. There’s SUCH a chasm between the quality of the arguments and the ability to engage meaningfully with the issue on the two sides - and such blissful ignorance on one side of there even being a chasm! It’s sometimes genuinely funny - but also quite distressing in the sheer hopelessness of ever seeing Howse even accept the proffered scuba gear, let alone putting it on and discovering the depths in which other posters are swimming that lie below his sarky complacency. It’s sad for us - we need him to attain this deeper understanding - and sad for them as they simply don’t realise how they’re sometimes coming across.

They don't really think you are a woman at all

Nailed it.

It is like the male posters who tell us constantly that no one asks them to leave the female toilets and their friends always tell them they pass.

Errr… no. That would be people acting in ways that confirm that they know the person is male and act in ways to not make that male person aggressive or sad or whatever.

We're getting awfully close to Layla Moran's 'I see their souls' - or whatever tripe it was - moment.

Anyway, religious women need single sex spaces for religious reasons, no wiggle room there so the men can fuck off.

Frankly I don't care what their motivations are - if they're going into clearly labelled single sex spaces that's a huge safeguarding red flag and they're - at best - unkind to women and girls so can fuck off.

I've stopped giving a tiny shit about the motivations men who transgress boundaries in place for women and children.

IncelsRUs and all that!

I mean you couldn't spell out the word INCEL more clearly if you tried.

Transcels are a subset of incels.

🤣😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣😅😅

I guess me and my female friends are all blokes then!

Oh Howie, you utter utter dumbass! 🤣

Has it never occurred to you that these are exactly the sort of topics women do arrange women-only clubs and sessions for? Exactly because so many men assume, like you, that we have so little interest in such things that if we are for some unfathomable reason talking about them we must be in need of male guidance.

Sometimes we need a space without men to talk about stereotypically "male" topics so we can get a word in without all the men who are triggered to mansplain at us 😆

(Or in the case of porn, to either aggressively tell us why we are wrong to object to the dehumanisation and brutalisation of female bodies for thrills and profit, or to get sweaty palmed at the thought of us enjoying it.)

But I'll let you into a secret Howie.

Just between us girls.

Come close and I'll whisper in your ear....

If the women you hang out with, the ones you believe accept you as a woman

Only talk about those "averagely" womanny interests you love to share

They don't really think you are a woman at all.

They are just playacting for you out of charity or conformity.

They are, in fact, twisting their authentic selves out of shape to accomodate you.

Because you are a man and that is what women are socialised to do, and what men are so socialised to expect that they don't even realise it.

And that is why women, in the original sex based meaning, need women-only spaces not just for physical safety but so we can find parts of our authentic selves that being around men suppresses.

Inclinations now is it? Oh. Aye!

So now it is motivations that categorise who should and should not access female single sex provisions of any type.

Except the motivation of a male person demanding access to a female single sex provision is certainly not like the motivation of the female people who need that provision.

This is more wheedling. The answer is still no.

Blimey, I've read some tedious old shite on this forum over the years, but the line that men need access to women's changing rooms so they don't become misogynists is a new one. What a winning argument!

MN is the first place that recognised this and started calling it toddler behaviour and children unable to cope with the word No.

Which is why we keep saying it, and why someone is having a meltdown on this thread because we aren't budging.

Its a regressive thing isn't it? Mothers are used to saying no to children and these are men who hate the concept of mothers and motherhood because they represent everything they can't be. Many have mothers who they have since bullied into submission as they have reached adulthood as part of a display of dominance over women. They hate women.

You can feel how much they hate women. They want to 'become' women so they can destroy women and everything women have. It is nihilistic culture. Its manipulative and abusive.

We see it for what it is. It is NOT passive.

It's mind blowing, really. Not only has he decided that men should have access based on wanting it, he's also decided that he gets to restrict access to those men on the basis of his made up criteria.

Drag queens, nooo, Howsit, yesss.

honestly, I've said it before, the only bloody way men are the oppressors is because of the brawn, because it sure ain't the brain

This rabbit hole into personality traits is hilarious.

You have reached incoherency stage again.

If you want to compare and contrast, look at my evidence-based arguments on toilet design compared to Stryker’s I posted earlier. One of us is earning a lot of money from promoting their (exclusionary) ‘inclusive’ design, the other is earning nothing but campaigning for safe design.

Read as much as possible and critically analyse them, basing your conclusions on real-life evidence.