Row over women-only sleeping berths on trains; Men V Mumsnet!

[SuitedandBooted]

Would anyone like to try and put some comments on this story - I don't seem to be allowed!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565999/Row-female-compartments-transgender-people-pits-Churchills-grandson-against-Mumsnet.html

Also, once again, given the prevalence of sexual violence in South Africa, have you asked the women you work with there whether they would like the toilets your NGO is working to provide to be single sex or not?

Then pay for a single

You have (unlike all too many women - and men) a choice. Pay extra and be rested. Pay less and be more uncomfortable

It is something the vast majority of the world understands

You seem to be completely incapable of understanding the rail company offers the choice of sharing (and being uncomfortable and cramped with another woman) but when the passenger turns up she might be sharing with a person whose body is fully, biologically male.

We have faced that issue. Our groups usually meet in places that are easily accessible such as public libraries - which have toilets. Some single sex and some unisex. Whatever is safe and accessible. Recently, having started an LGBTI+ support group we have discussed the issue of toilets. We have made sure toilets are single cubicle and that has been sufficient so far. It's under review to make sure everyone can participate. We also serve some very traditional religious communities, and balance their needs as well.

I think people who are genetically male who don't want to share with males are the ones who should be paying for a single.
I find it bizarre that women should be expected to pay extra to not share with genetic males where as the genetic males shouldn't. If men aren't that scary then let the men identifying as women share with them.
People with XY chromosomes are either not a problem to share with or they are.
I would be far happier sharing a cabin with a woman identifying as male than a man identifying as female.
I find it bizarre that men identifying as women (whatever that means, I don't identify as a woman I just am one) feel they are too precious to share with the scary men but think we should be expected to do so.

You have (unlike all too many women - and men) a choice

Again, the Top Trumps of Suffering.

Again, women expecting their rights are positioned as the unreasonable ones.

Our funders (various international bodies such as the UN and EU) need gender rights outcomes. Our program shows changes in attitudes to statements such as 'sometimes women deserve to be beaten', for example (both men and women less likely to agree after our program). And similar statements reflecting an increased belief in the value of women.

I think people who are genetically male who don't want to share with males are the ones who should be paying for a single.

Yes, exactly. Why is it the women who need to pay extra for a single?

The suggestion essentailly seems to be that women don't use this service.

So women must "choose" to restrict their lives because of male violence.

So fresh, new and progressive.

What happens if a passing TW gets put in a single sex carriage with a massive bloke who is very intimidating but happens to ID as a woman that day. Would they be happy? I suspect not. But, we have to be?

The TW want in with the women.

This will allow in anyone who says they are women.

Therefore, the TW will also be at risk of being in with a dodgy bloke.

Who does any of this help?

When your definition of women includes men it becomes a meaningless definition though.

Our funders (various international bodies such as the UN and EU) need gender rights outcomes.

Your funders are actually referring to sex.

Allington. Once again: why do you think single-sex accommodation (as still advertised by Cal Sleeper!) is an unreasonable thing to want?

None of your posts answer this question.

Every sleeper train has a carriage with the usual seats, which are cheaper. No one has to use a sleeper to get to wherever they need. A sleeper is a luxury. Use it or not, according to your preference.

Did you miss the part where employers often book the shared accommodation?

I have taken the chance and survived ,( with any threat being from a self identified male). It seems a tiny chance is being blown up into a huge issue - given that the sleeper train is in any case an unnecessary luxury.

First world problem

The advertising is wrong, you have every reason to object.

Your employer is at fault, raise it with them.

And other women on this thread have detailed their experiences of being sexually assaulted on overnight trains. Your anecdotes about your life do not establish that this is not a problem.

And fuck right off with the "first world problem" - you're not any less raped as a woman if you happen to come from a relatively wealthy western nation.

Are there cheaper, less comfortable options that would afford a woman an environment free of unknown males then?

If it's not a problem to trans people and it's fine for women to sleep with strange men in tiny bunk bed cabins then why not stick with sharing with people of the same (genetic) sex.
It's a first world problem because having travelled in India I very much doubt a woman there would be expected to share with a man who wants to be a woman.
I thought talking about the third world wasn't pc any more so surely the first world isn't OK either as it assumes there are other (lower) categories.

I have taken the chance and survived ,( with any threat being from a self identified male). It seems a tiny chance is being blown up into a huge issue - given that the sleeper train is in any case an unnecessary luxury

It is completely irrelevant whether or not it is an unnecessary luxury. If the rail company don't wish to offer segregated accommodation- fine but don't offer it then fail to deliver.

Allington is sadly part of the gender studies diasphora that has emerged over the past ten or so years who believes that because they identify as cool then no one is entitled to any privacy or respect for their sex based differences anywhere in the world. It's just not cool anymore to the people from gender world.

No one seems to be able to point to a situation where a trans-man/woman is the problem. Men who identify as men (and the whole toxic masculinity problem) yes, but that is different from men identifying as women. In less comfortable, multi- seat carriages women are less vulnerable because of so many witnesses.

Should anyone be able to travel anywhere in any situation without fear? Of course. Is not being able to have a single sex sleeper between London and Scotland a deprivation of human rights? No. Get over it.

Allington, why do you think single-sex accommodation is such an unreasonable thing for women to want? Why is it something women should have to ‘get over’?

Is not being able to have a single sex sleeper between London and Scotland a deprivation of human rights? No. Get over it

No one has said it is. You are completely missing the point. Why is the option being offered at all ?

@2rebecca - yy, spot on:
I think people who are genetically male who don't want to share with males are the ones who should be paying for a single.
I find it bizarre that women should be expected to pay extra to not share with genetic males where as the genetic males shouldn't. If men aren't that scary then let the men identifying as women share with them.

It really, really, really bloody pisses me off that it's always women who are expected to budge up, never men.

As for that poster's assertion that women should meekly accept a sleepless night in an upright seat, instead of a bed on a Sleeper service, so that poor ickle TIMs can have a good night's sleep? That poster can fuck right off.