Might be, but the style is very familiar.

🍿🐈😄

No.

Cancer of the vulva exists. A woman who has had to have surgery to that area is still a woman.

A man who has had cosmetic surgery is not a woman.

I thought I saw popcorn. And a cat. And it's Friday night. And schools finished today.

Fun, you say?

hmmm

Did I miss all the fun?

Aha! Yes!
And in 1970 ... it looked like this:
(original book cover of The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer)

Nope. Female only spaces will do, thanks. TW are male so whether they’ve had surgery or not is irrelevant. They shouldn’t be in Female Toilets. Female toilets are for female people. No need to complicate things 🤷‍♀️

Are we back to the stupid argument that:

Women are non-men.
Castrated men are non-men.
Therefore women and castrated men must be the same?

Any thoughts about safeguarding children @Lurkingandlearning ? Actually safeguarding them? Or just more utter bullshit?

(Apologies, I may have run out of patience)

And the words women or female on a sign to a single sex space does make it very clear that space is for women.

We don't need to change the words that have been perfectly fine for the majority of our lives. And why the hell should we?

What needs to change is the attitude of the men and organisations who think fuck the Supreme court, fuck the Code of Practice, they don't apply to special men like Dave over there, we'll continue to piss off all the women and enter / let men into women only spaces.

And if they won't do it willingly then women will make them do it through the courts.

But we don't change the words. They are our words. The men can fuck off.

‘Female only spaces’ provides ample clarity, imo, @Lurkingandlearning. If you include surgically created, testicle skin neovulvas in your ‘Vulvas Only’ space, it immediately stops being a single sex space.

But we’d still be exposed to male bodies and male behaviour. Behaviour, including offending rates and types of offending are the same for men who have had surgery and/or hormones.

Men are always men. They might be a different variety of men, but one thing they can never be is women.

No. Using the word vulva gives some men a hard-on. (Do you identify ?). And there is no reason why women only spaces doesn't work just fine. As you know.

Why do you continue to push this? (That was a retorical question btw. I know why. I just continue to ask these questions for the actual lurkers and learners).

Your proposal potentially reopens the door to some males just when we’ve got legal clarification all males are excluded from female spaces. No thank-you.

do women deserve to be uncomfortable in their spaces? No.

I agree, and the EA makes it very clear that this is all the reason that is needed for single sex spaces.

Single sex services are permitted where they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa)

Interestingly, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act included similar reasoning but referred to men's comfort.

(1)A person who provides at any place facilities or services restricted to men does not for that reason contravene section 29(1)

If the facilities or services are provided for, or are likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(i)the facilities or services are such, or those persons are such, that male users are likely to suffer serious emarrassment at the presence of a woman, or

(ii)the facilities or services are such that a user is likely to be in a state of undress and a male user might reasonably object to the presence of a female user.

I don’t want to be reduced to a body part.

I’ve had enough of being a uterus haver, an ovary holder and the rest. I’ve no desire in having a space for vulva owners.

I am a woman.

That’s plenty.

It has been shown on many occasions that body parts from a catalogue do not a sex change make. A man’s a man for a’ that.

I’m content with being a woman and going into a room for women (and girls).

Has anyone seen that documentary on Channel 4 called The Secret of Me?

The subject was born male, but a surgeon decided that his penis was far too small and should be removed, and the baby brought up as a girl.

The poor boy was brought up as a girly girl in frilly dresses, and not allowed to do the boy-things he would have preferred to do.

When he discovered what his parents had agreed to, he was devastated, and felt completely outcast.

I have a friend whose parents desperately wanted a boy. She was a girl, their firstborn, and they tried to bring her up as though she were a boy. This meant withholding love and affection from her.

This friend is now in her 50s. She has struggled with poor mental health all her life and has an eating disorder.

I'm a woman, I grew up in the 1960s. I became a feminist at the age of 14. But before that, I was "flashed" on more than one occasion. The first time it happened, I was only 4 or 5. I could never understand the fear of the penis, or the worship of it, either. It's an appendage. I was scared a little by the flashers, but it was their weird behaviour that was alarming, not their penises. I had no idea why they wanted me to look at their appendage. It was of no interest.

Reducing people to being their genitals is extreme reductionism, and does not make any sense, and does not mean anything other than the people who want to do that are very strange. I don't care about penises, and I don't want women to be defined by their external genitalia, and I don't want men in women's spaces.

But you were including males in your definition, so still managing to marginalise (what an interesting choice of word to pick!) women.

It's quite impressive really, at the same time as torpedoing TIM human rights (must have had penis removed to enter), reducing women to a body part, you haven't theoretically solved the issue at all. In fact you just made it theoretically far more complicated. Well done!

Or we just stick to single sex spaces for women being named "women's" or "female", because it's very clear already what those two non-offensive words mean to the majority of the world.

I hope no one reports this post, it would be nice if it could be saved in the thread for posterity.

Apparently the intelligent, articulate women here who want to keep males out of female single sex spaces, and who have argued with illogical-offensive nonsense from TRAs for years are fuck wits... says the OP looks back at OP's posts. I think we all know who the fuck wits are, and it's not the women😂

No males of any kind in female spaces.

But we don't want to just bar the men with penises. We want to bar the men without penises too. All men, barred from women-only services. Simples.

Reducing women to their body parts. No thanks.

As has already been pointed out, you were apparently including men who'd had genital surgery in your proposed "vulva only" spaces. So double no.

You'd have us retreat from the words we use to categorise us as a sex because men are apporopriating them and colonising our spaces, but most of us say fuck no to that.

If we did this, it wouldn't matter. Whatever alternative words we use to describe ourselves, these types of men would eventually appropriate those too.

Are you saying that some men with penises genuinely believe they are women with penises and don’t understand that the women’s changing rooms are not for them?

But even by creating the category "women, and men who have had this specific mutilation", you're normalising this horrific procedure, and tacitly accepting it as a legitimate thing to do.

It's not. It's not ok to horrifically mutilate a living human being in such a way. It doesn't matter if he opts into it, there are some things we just shouldn't do, we can't let people consent to be harmed so significantly. It's too barbarically cruel.

It’s perfectly clear already in UK law.
Women’s spaces are for females. No one is really confused by this, whatever they may pretend. We don’t need to describe ourselves in terms of specific female body parts. Your idea is misplaced, completely unecessary and as unwelcome to most women as being described as ‘menstruators’.