Is it safety or separation?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE OPPOSITE GENDER BECAUSE GENDER IS:

A. NOT BINARY
B. NOT REAL
C. SEXIST CLAPTRAP

He has indeed. Not the sharpest tool is the shed is he bless him.

What's the term for a male Karen?

Or have you just accidentally proven our point?

Look dearie. Women are saying no. It doesn’t matter what you say, how you say it or even if you put a big bow on it. The answer is no. No means no. Did your parents never teach you that

<Paging clean up team, we have a Karen in aisle six, paging clean up>

Depends on the individual & how far the want to embrace their femininity/masculinity & now its become more acceptable that's why some are taking further steps to live their 'authenticity'.

Um, that may have something to do with the company you keep. The women of today aren't shy to tell you what they think. 'Karen' didn't come out of no where…

That female people want to spend time with other female people sometimes is hardly a cause for concern that those female people are seeking ‘separatism’ as part of a movement.

And psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities is a meaningless tool for categorising humans as to who has access to single sex spaces or single sex provisions. I think it is clear that you have tried across multiple threads to articulate your point but fail because your point is irrelevant for the premise you are trying to defend.

if your definition of 'legitimacy' is one in which people believe exactly what you say or tell them, regardless of what the the measurable evidence and facts say to the contrary, then no, there can be no legitimacy unless there is a universal acceptance of your premise. There isn't.

No. Legitimacy requires associations. So no, one can't claim to be a homosexual without having associations to homosexual behaviour.

The movement from one state to another is socially living as the opposite gender by making changes to one's body & social status.

Actually, I think it boils down to fear. Not of us, per se, but ultimately of mortality. Probably mixed in with a thwarted longing for mother love.

I could be very wrong though, it happens.

I don’t “seek the company of other women” for safety.

I seek the company of a space where there are no men because men are not safe for me to be around.

See the difference?

I don’t seek the company of other women.

The law of the land in which I live (the U.K.) allows for single sex spaces where there are reasonable under the equality act. (Short summary - I could write a whole essay on it). As such, single sex spaces lawfully exist and I use them as I am entitled to do.

@IHatePapaya it makes sense if that's the side they're transitioning to

It makes no sense, there are no 'sides' involved, 'Sides' implies some voluntary choice, as in a game. This is about sex, there from conception, there in every cell, unchangeable by drugs or surgery.

It is not difficult, It is the easiest thing in the world.

You tell me.

Please explain why women seek the company of women other than for safety? Why the desire if their discussions aren't any different from men's? Because their conversations only ever limited to their 'biological realities'?

Reality isn't convenient is it?

It doesn't matter whether you think medically transitioned transwomen should be treated differently than ones who have not.

Unfortunately the ECHR had a ruling some time ago where medical transition couldn't be a requirement to transition because some individuals medically couldn't have those surgeries because of medical reasons.

So you can't treat non medically transition trans women differently from a medically transitioned transwoman.

Why do men find it so difficult to respect women or allow us autonomy?

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

i say no. As the law allows me to. And that’s it. The law has been clarified and it says no men in the women’s single sex spaces and no women in the men’s.

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

It doesn’t have to be difficult. Everyone uses the facilities relevant to their sex. What could be simpler? The only people making it difficult are those who think they are special and the law shouldn’t apply to them.

And I guess to @IHatePapaya 's final comment "I don't know why it has to be so difficult", it doesn't really. Saying "men in the men's, women in the women's" should be the easiest thing in the world.

What is difficult is when you step away from that simple model to find a way that lets you pretend it's still "men in the men's, women in the women's" while allowing a handful of men into the ladies so they can enjoy feeling the spirit of the ladies as well.

If you care about inclusion - you have to care equally about inclusion of men and of women.

If you care about kindness - you have to care equally about being kind to men and to women.

If you care about access and equality - you have to care equally about it for men and for women.

Otherwise you're merely arguing for male supremacism but chickening out of owning it.

The problem is always going to be, to take pity on a few special fragile sad men who have done enough that you feel they deserve the prize of access to undressed women -

is that you have to send some women out of women's spaces and leave them with nothing. No one's going to give them third spaces (and men would demand access to them if they did.)

Why would you believe that a sad man should have freedom of choice and be granted access to undressed women, and that this matters more than the access of some women to anything at all, unless you in fact value men more than you do women?

And this has already been destruction tested. The GRA WAS this compromise - a few special fully transitioned men. And men did what men as a sex class do, and we ended up with men wanking in cubicles with open doors and waving swords while shouting at women that they couldn't stop them. There is no way to gatekeep. If it's one man, it's all men. All the hours and pages of the SC court judgment and the cases before it go into all this in great depth. It was tried. Men broke it. It does not and cannot ever work for women. And women matter just as much as sad men do.

I have also yet to find anywhere in any human rights documentation that being provided with access to non consenting women in a state of undress is a 'right' for any man, sad or not.

Papaya, I can imagine it is very hard if you have a child who is affected by the issues.

Women need our rights, we fought for them because we need them. If we allow some men to use these rights, then we no longer have them, because they are not women's rights anymore, but the rights of anyone who wants them. I don't mean this as an abstract point, either.

If we need single sex spaces, services, and rights, then they need.to be single sex.

I know what you mean. I do from time to time think "is it really that much of a problem to let some trans women, the most transitioned, the least harmful [yes I realise "least harmful" is in no way a given just because "most transitioned", and indeed what does "most transitioned" mean anyway, but bear with me...] use some women's spaces, if that's all it is, if they accept it's not sports or reserved roles or communal nudity, is it really so bad?...

But my thought process always comes back to this:

Do I believe some men are in any meaningful way actually more like women than other men?

Well no. I believe that's a sexist and reductive way of thinking. Women and girls aren't a set of behaviours or a presentation that a man can adopt, we are simply female humans. So I am very uncomfortable going down a route where society even slightly condones the suggestion that some men are closer to being women than others.

Ok, so these men aren't really women. But they are vulnerable and harmless so why not accept them as "not women, but under women's protection"?

Sounds better.... but then again lots of men are vulnerable and harmless. Why should these ones and these ones only get the privilege of using women's protections?

Um - I guess because these are the only ones who claim to be women so the question only comes up for them?

But that's just back to accepting that a man's claim to be a woman because of his mind or presentation has weight in the real world. In reality he's no more like a woman than any other man so he doesn't have any more claim than any other man.

How about dignity? If a trans woman has to use male facilities it's humiliating for him because people who assumed he was a woman now realise he is a man. Could be dangerous. Definitely embarassing.

I guess - but is that not kind of on him for deceiving people? Is it really fair to expect women to play along with his deception? Why should the dangers he creates for himself through dishonesty justify giving him a privilege that honest men do not have?

And so it goes. Whenever I think it through looking for a less harsh line, I just come back to there being no reason to treat them as women and not men that doesn't come down to sexism, collusion in a deception or unfair favouring of one group of vulnerable men over all the others.

@RedToothBrush can see how many people click the 'agree' react button on her posts. No self-importance, and not an opinion. She knows.

It's not difficult.

You cannot transition from male to female or vice versa. So "female" is not the side they are transitioning to. It is the side we are on and they are not.

You cannot allow harmless trans identifying men into women's spaces whilst keeping the dangerous ones out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Karen Whites and Isla Brysons of this world. Because nobody is standing guard on toilet doors, checking whether they are a nice trans woman who wouldn't harm a fly, or a violent male predator looking to exploit a societal loophole in order to abuse women.

You cannot allow trans identifying men with gender recognition certificates into women's spaces whilst keeping trans identifying men without gender recognition certificates out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Eddie/Suzie Izzards of this world. Because nobody is standing guard on toilet doors, checking whether they have a magical piece of paper saying they are legally a woman, or whether it's just a case of "on Wednesdays, we wear pink!"

You cannot allow trans identifying men who have had their penises removed into women's spaces whilst keeping trans identifying men who have retained their male genitalia out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Grace Laverys (author of "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Penis") of this world. Because nobody is standing on guard on toilet doors, checking whether their penis has been turned inside out, or whether they're still proudly sporting the full meat and two veg.

Which brings me to...

You cannot allow trans identifying men of any kind into women's spaces whilst keeping non trans identifying men out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Levi Bellfields and Vincent Tabaks of this world. Because if all you have to do to gain access to women's spaces is claim to identify as a woman (and, as per the above, it's not practical to use any other criteria), well, any man can claim to be a woman at any time and for any reason.

So the answer is very simple.

We don't allow any of them in.

It doesn't matter how nice or nasty they are, whether they are soft and harmless or a violent convicted criminal, it doesn't matter whether they really believe they identify as women or are just trying it on, whether they almost "pass" or whether they look like a pig in a wig, it doesn't matter how sad they feel not to be included or how uncomfortable they feel in men's toilets.

They are not women, so they can't come in.