Trans and third space?

[Teachtolive]

This is by no means an anti trans thread. I am not anti trans. It could also be an extremely naive question so I apologise in advance if this is in any way offensive, it's not my intention. Would the use of third spaces not solve a lot of issues? So men's, women's and trans bathrooms, men's, women's and trans sporting events etc? Or if it wouldn't solve issues of safe spaces and biological advantages, why not?

As well as sports, I haven’t found cases of trans men (born female) fighting for their rights to be included in male prisons, men’s toilet, male awards/shortlist’s.

It’s take take take, one way street.

It’s take take take, one way street.

Of course is. And anyone with half a brain can see it.

It astonishes me that anyone could argue otherwise.

I still say once you have fortified your toilets and changing rooms, you may as well make them openly unisex so everyone knows where they stand.

You kind of have to to make it sufficiently fortified anyway, the cubicles would need to open onto public areas if we can no longer challenge or flee males in female communal areas. See PP's experience of being shoved into a cubicle. You could I suppose label some of your public doors M and some F, but the M ones would need to have sanitary bins anyway to cater for transmen so why distinguish.

For example I often go to Tesco's very late at night on my way home from events and use the loos. Obviously it's very quiet. Currently if I saw a bloke going into the ladies', I could call the security guard. Can't do that if self ID becomes the accepted definition of male/female because they can say they're trans and I'm being transphobic. I do not want to be alone behind a shut door with a strange man at midnight, even the basin bit. If I see a man I have no way of knowing or showing they're not a TW.

There is also a slippage problem. If you go along with the pretence that a man is a woman for the purposes of toilets and fortified changing facilities it becomes harder to insist they're not when it comes to sharing communal changing or a YHA dormitory or a girl guide tent or a refuge.

There is also a slippage problem. If you go along with the pretence that a man is a woman for the purposes of toilets and fortified changing facilities it becomes harder to insist they're not when it comes to sharing communal changing or a YHA dormitory or a girl guide tent or a refuge.

Exactly.

I think these fortified cubicles are a dreadful idea, particularly anywhere alcohol is served or where people who've been drinking may turn up.

I used to be a barmaid. One of my jobs was keeping an eye on the ladies. Women would retreat to the loos to cry, hide from men they didn't want to see or who scared them, all sorts of stuff. And quite often one would be very sick or pass out, which could potentially have grave consequences.

For this reason it was made very easy to get into locked cubicles so I could check on people's safety.

However it wouldn't have been remotely safe if men could access the ladies loo. The impermeable barrier wasn't the cubicles. They were designed to be flimsy. It was the solid door that separated the ladies from the pub. And what made it impermeable was that any man who tried to get through that door got banned. And everyone knew that.

Fortified floor to ceiling cubicles are fucking dangerous. If you get stuck inside one with someone dodgy you're trapped. If you pass out or get ill you're shut off from help. And what about sound traveling? I can imagine that it'd be far more likely no one would hear cries for help in either situation. Nah.

Yes prawn, hence my saying that in order to be remotely safe the fortified cubicles would have to open directly onto public areas e.g. the bar area in your case. There are so many impracticalities really can't see it catching on.

YY Prawn.

The very fact the cubicles need to be fortified is an argument that they shouldn’t exist.
We were talking about systems recently here - a system needs to be safe on the most basic level it can be. If you need to transport a lion to a new zoo you don’t take it on the tube and tell people it’s a pet cat, with a doctor to treat the people it bites. You put it in a secure crate on a dedicated transport. You make the system safe at the most basic level, and try to avoid problems being ABLE to arise. If a system has the potential to allow Bad Event X you look at how it can be changed to not allow it, you don’t look at how Bad Event X can be fixed after the fact.

Fine, consider again the alternative. Men's, ladies', and a "gender neutral" space that anyone can use. All similarly "secure" as we have now.

A woman uses the gender neutral. She attacked in there. In fact she's not a woman, she's a girl, because it's known that the younger generation are far happier using gender neutral facilities than their elders.

Will you tell her toilets needn't be as safe as possible because she "should have known better"? What would you tell a trans woman who gets attacked in there?

If security in toilets is not currently adequate (a lot of the GC argument is that it is not adequate to protect women from men pretending to be trans) then security needs to be improved. That's the bottom line.

If a man pretends to be a trans woman tomorrow, makes it into a toilet and assaults someone, will you say, "oh well, we had the system that we would spot a man going in there, but we missed that one. We didn't think we needed to do anything else. Shame for the poor girl really, but those locks you can open from the outside with an electronic key ONLY are expensive".

Oh Rat - here, let me lend you a spoon so you can really scrape the bottom of that barrel.

Prawn very good point. It would be interesting to hear from the emergency services about that.

Hardly Datun. The determination here to find some justification to "ban" trans women from toilets is palpable. It's almost like that is in fact the aim, rather than supposedly the privacy and dignity of women.

Of course it's the aim. That's sex segregation.

You just keep acknowledging that mixed sex toilets are dangerous and spinning yourself off into the distance to try and shoehorn that into promoting them!

Segregation for segregation's sake is NOT a good thing Datun.

It's actually the reason the Equality Act exists; to prevent people segregating when there is no good reason. It's quite a fundamental principle of non-discrimination.

I'm not acknowledging toilets in general are unsafe, I'm showing you how even if they were unsafe your "solution" would be no safer for women than toilets segregated by gender.

Because if you can't counter that you're simply proving that the only reason you want segregation is for segregation's sake. Despite all your bluster about it being "safer" or "more private" for women, it looks more and more like plain old prejudge.

It's actually the reason the Equality Act exists; to prevent people segregating when there is no good reason. It's quite a fundamental principle of non-discrimination

And pretty much all the the examples on this thread show a very good reason.

And pretty much all the the examples on this thread show a very good reason.

Except that the proposed alternative is no safer!

It’s funny. I know a transwomen. Young woman, aged 21.

She fully acknowledges she isn’t a woman. She’s perfectly happy with the label “transwoman”.

She also thinks having the option for gender neutral loos in addition to sex-segregated spaces is the best and fairest option for all.

She fully acknowledges the need for biological women to have spaces

Exactly. Because mixed sex toilets aren't safe for women.

Sorry that was to rat.

Unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities, research by The Sunday Times shows. Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities, which make up less than half the total.

My solution is to keep sex segregation. If trans people aren't happy with that, it's up to them to come up with a different solution that suits them.

The solution that most likely suits everyone is what we have now; segregation by gender - potentially with an additional gender neutral facility for those who don't feel comfortable in a gender segregated facility.

Segregation by gender is mixed sex. You yourself, have just pointed out that it's dangerous.

And a gender neutral section is also mixed sex!

🤣

women and girls than single-sex facilities, research by The Sunday Times shows. Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities,

I think you're not following Datun, I said if it were dangerous, a separate "unisex" option would be dangerous for women too.

And yeah, 90% of 230 incidents happened in unisex facilities, over two years, in a population of 65 million.

That's before you even consider whether or not these facilities were one that even could have been sex segregated in the first place; because with "family changing" at the swimming pool for example there is no possible alternative arrangement!

Come on Datun, get a handle on the stats. Walking through a park is a statistically more dangerous activity for women.

Walking through a park is a statistically more dangerous activity for women.

But if what you say is true, there is absolutely no reason why men who identify as women can't use the gents. What with it being so safe and all.

And you're ignoring the truth that the unisex option increases risk to women. It may not be a big risk but I don't see why women should run it. Plus most people, men included, much prefer single sex facilities.