Trans People in Women Only Safe Spaces - please help me to understand

[WinstonSG]

This is a genuine question to try and broaden my understanding of a complex issue.

My stance is that the risk of having a blanket rule around those that identify as women being allowed complete access to women only safe spaces, is putting women at risk due to the potential for predatory men to take advantage of this.

My issue is not with trans people. I support their right to live without prejudice and discrimination.

To me, this then comes down to who's rights matter more: females or born males that identify as women.

It seems either option causes harm to each group. Again, no issue with trans people, but a blanket rule that places women at risk (because of predatory men saying they identify as women in order to gain access to those spaces) and increases their vulnerability surely can't be the right answer?

But how can it be decided who's rights should be protected over other vulnerable groups?

Well this is the issue isn't it? Up until now, many have seen fit to throw out women's rights completely for a small minority of men. Which seems a little unfair to me.....

Of course, there are other solutions that wouldn't affect women, such as campaigning for third spaces, in order to keep trans people safe, but funnily enough, TRAs aren't interested in that at all. I wonder why?

Do you think it’s fair to punish trans people for the crimes of criminals?

Asking Transwomen to respect women’s spaces isn’t punishment. I wouldn’t expect to march into a support group for TW and invade that space.

Is asking for a third (or even fourth) space to accommodate those who are vulnerable with the men, but who make women feel vulnerable, "punishment"? I thought offering spaces that would be comfortable for them would be a reasonable solution. Why is it a punishment? I don't understand that statement at all. Miranda Yardley is actively campaigning for third spaces, and she's trans. She doesn't see it as a punishment to be provided with a safe space.

Your question suggests that we can either protect women or trans women but not both. That's an incorrect assumption.

You don't help one vulnerable group by disadvantaging another vulnerable group.

You find a way to help trans women without reducing the protection and rights of women.

A third space and segregation in prisons.
3rd spaces and segregation in hospitals.
Create Trans welcoming hostels whilst keeping women's hostels available.
I wouldn't mind single occupancy unisex loos with sinks if we could enforce sitting rather than standing to reduce the wee issue. Maybe low ceilings or low hanging light fittings would help

I'm strongly against male born participants in female sports and there is no way around this one. A male body cannot be amended in any way that makes competing with women a level playing field.

I said four spaces, because I don't think it's fair to expect trans women and trans men to share.

I think the right of a woman or girl to a space that is safe and provides dignity and privacy (don't forget women all over the country whose culture/faith forbids them being around other men unchaperoned) does trump the right of a man to express himself as a woman, in that space. This cannot be compromised.

So yes, I believe that right is secondary.

If a transwoman does not feel safe in men's facilities they and their well TRA cheerleaders should address why that is.

And here’s the crux of it: TRAs are demanding to access women’s spaces. If it were really about safety and protection from attack, then a third space would be acceptable. The demand that women move over and accept TW without question in our spaces reveals what it’s all about: domination and capitulation.

Do you think it’s fair to punish trans people for the crimes of criminals?

We keep all males out of women's spaces because of the crimes of a few men. It's not a 'punishment', its safeguarding. We DBS check everyone who is going to be working with vulnerable people, even though the vast majority of people who get a DBS check get it back with 'no crimes recorded'. Its not 'punishment', its safeguarding.

Trans women are male, therefore, as part of that safeguarding they shouldn't be in female spaces. Especially if they have simply 'self identified' as female with absolutely fuck all gatekeeping.

But how can it be decided who's rights should be protected over other vulnerable groups?

My rule of thumb is the most vulnerable group get priority. So for women's spaces it's women.

Think about a school, the teachers all have rights but the balance is always with the child(ren). Schools are built with glass in doors and teachers are told not to be alone with a child, it protects both child and teacher but it protects the child more.

Dumping TW (or men who claim to be) into women's facilities is no solution for anyone.

There are other males who may be particularly vulnerable to male violence - eg effeminate gay men. How about people who genuinely give a shit about everybodies rights putting their efforts into finding solutions which work for all such males?

TW should be campaigning for

• an end to male aggression towards them & other minority male groups
• third spaces

If the TRAs were doing this I think there would be support from most quarters.

OP, if you are genuinely interested in this I'd suggest you take a look on the petitions board for the one by Fionne Olander and Miranda Yardley - TW who understand the issues well and who are trying to campaign for third spaces. Read what they have to say.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard

Maybe we should continue this discussion (and whenever similar questions arise) on that petitions thread so it gets into Active Convos instead of languishing as is the fate of most petitions once they get moved to that board?

It's good to see an open balanced discussion on this in Chat.

I agree on third spaces. There should be women-only spaces and services, like prisons, refuges, changing rooms, toilets. But if we can provide a mixed sex space, and services that are inclusive as well as exclusive, then we can ensure we cater for everyone.

Excluding transwomen from some single-sex spaces for females isn't othering, indeed if society is as inclusive and progressive as we are led to believe then the mixed sex spaces will become the norm, and women who use single-sex spaces will become the 'othered', and will be left alone to access services etc with just other women who feel the same.
Which is fine by me.

You ask with vulnerable groups whose rights take priority but that depends on the space. If the space was specifically set up to provide sex based protections then womens rights take priority since it is speciafically for their protection. If it was a space set up for transwomen then their rights would be prioritised.

You don't create equality by taking away the rights people have which were hard fought for and still needed.

Are you checking back in, OP?

If there was a way of separating out the 'genuine' trans from the chancers, perverts, fetishists, misogynists and rapists wanting access to vulnerable women and girls then maybe theres a conversation to be had.

However, when all a man has to do is say that they identify as a woman in order to be considered 'genuine' and any questioning of this deemed as transphobic then that's never going to happen is it.

And if Stonewall have their way, literally any man of any motive can make claim to womanhood.

According the the previous Chief executive of Stonewall theres no reason to be concerned because 'Men will always rape women' anyway.

thetoddler spot on, but as a PP stated, the TRA don't want a third space because they believe the rights of TW come before women and girls and anyone who questions this is a hateful bigot and how dare women even discuss this....
Self ID hasn't even come in yet, but already the likes of M&S and John Lewis allow anyone to use the changing room they feel most comfortable in...

@JellySlice

Fair enough - happy to support the views of women who feel more strongly about separation even after full transition than I do.

Ultimately, I think women's views on spaces that are for their own comfort and safely take priority - for TW, their need to be able to be accommodated is either about:

• safety ( in which case, the beef is with other men largely and why should women be forced to share, particularly if the risk is then to women's own safety from the selective TW types (ie TW with penis, TW part time etc - safe spaces are the answer); or

• "feels" about being accepted as a woman socially, in which case the concern is just not of the same magnitude as women's feelings about their safety (and using manipulated suicide statistics about a set of highly vulnerable people and saying "these people will be so sad that they will kill themselves if you don't budge up" to try to engineer a higher level concern is hideous and wrong on so many levels) and in any case no one gets to manipulate society according to their own feels. It's not a perfect analogy, but I have small breasts - sometimes I would like bigger ones, particularly when trying on certain outfits, occasionally I feel sensitive or insecure about it - BUT I do not expect other people to pretend that I have bigger breasts than I do, or to pretend that bigger breasts are unattractive in my company, or other women with bigger breasts to minimise their own chests in my company. I do not have the right to determine what other people do or like simply because it would make me feel more comfortable. I don't think it is acceptable to be unpleasant to TW, to use past names or pronouns etc on purpose but you don't get the right to force other people give you validation.

I don't think it is acceptable to be unpleasant to TW, to use past names or pronouns etc on purpose but you don't get the right to force other people give you validation.

I do my best to treat everyone courteously. Nonetheless, respect must be earned, and I see no reason to treat respectfully a person who dismisses me, whether as an individual or as a woman.

People have every right to choose their own name, so, if someone has changed their name, it is good manners to use that name. It is ridiculous for me to go along with the pretence that their previous name never existed or must never be mentioned. Yusuf Islam went through a substantial, permanent and life-changing transition, yet he does not deny the reality of Cat Stevens (or even Steven Demetre Georgiou).

Third person pronouns, however, are chosen by the speaker. They are not for the third person to dictate. If a male tells me that I should refer to him as 'she', he can FOTTFSOFATFOSM. He does not have the right to compel my speech, nor to force me to support an ideology or any other faith-based position.

I know a physically and socially transitioned TW. I've known them since they were a teenage boy. They are an emotionally very fragile person, with poor mental health. This is not a judgement, they told me this themselves, and I agree. In their presence I refer to them as she (no, it's not rude, sometimes you refer to each other when chatting in a group) because I have no desire to cause them greater distress. Otherwise I refer to them as he. Because they are male. The only times I use them are when talking to their parents (again, to reduce distress) and just now here on MN, because, ironically, compelled speech is the price I pay for freedom of speech.