Would you back self ID if...

[daimbars]

Once a trans women got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to have the same rights as all women? For example they would only be able to apply for a job as a women’s officer, appear on a female only panel or to compete in women’s sport after five years of lived experience as a woman?

Someone I know is meeting with her MP to discuss how to propose this legislation. She thinks it will address possible repercussions from self ID and stop it being abused. I thought it was an interesting idea I could get behind.

Managed to get a post deleted, makes me infamous?
So to try again without getting deleted.
No I have no wish to share any space I as a woman have carved out of this patriarchal world.
I also want nothing to do with campaigns for [redacted] spaces or services.
Shall spend my time and money campaigning for natal women's stuff.
Thank you.

Infamy infamy

They've all got it infamy

You seem to be suggesting that we don't fight self id, but fight for new additional unisex facilities? How does that keep the women's spaces female only?

The issue is that self-ID relates just to getting a GRC. We have most trans people without a GRC but using the facilities of the sex they identify with. We have de facto self-ID already in all areas of society. Stopping self-ID will not reduce the number of transgender people or the extent to which they use women's facilities such as toilets or changing rooms. I just think that horse bolted a long time ago.

I think additional unisex spaces are good because it means trans people have a safe space without using women's spaces. Women's spaces would be retained for those who feel strongly about all female spaces. Ditto for males. Unisex changes and toilets would be fully private and contained- ie in the same manner as current unisex disabled toilets.

Facilities for sports competitions and refuges and hospitals and prisons would have specific targeted services and spaces for trans and non-binary people. Female spaces would remain.

I get the bit about respite from men, I really do. I am not sure it is the route to equality but I do understand it.

Does a woman only space have to be a feminist space?

No, but it is likely to inadvertently become one hence the patriarchs doing everything in their power to stop them

No I have no wish to share any space I as a woman have carved out of this patriarchal world.

Me neither. I would have supported people who present as opposite to their birth sex but the actions of activists have hardened me. I would no more fight for unisex or other spaces than fly to the moon now.

Women had to fight alone, people who present as opposite to their birth sex can do the same. I will fight like hell for more sex segregated spaces. It's not my place to endanger myself or other women to validate people who present as opposite to their birth sex.

Please let me know where all these women-only feminist spaces are in the UK!

I was talking about Sweden! My experience is that they are pretty trans-inclusive and yes they have feminist groups, but for children in particular, there is certainly much more of an emphasis on treating boys and girls the same and avoiding segregation unless necessary.

There are many feminist groups in the UK and 98% of them will have no trans members or male members. I am a member of one.

I would no more fight for unisex or other spaces than fly to the moon now.

That's fine of course. My point is that they will not fight for their own spaces because they are happy having our spaces... And it's a fight they seem to be winning.

And it's a fight they seem to be winning.

Considering the push-back is relatively new it probably does look that way.

I think additional unisex spaces are good because it means trans people have a safe space without using women's spaces.

Why do you think they will use the unisex spaces and not women's spaces? If trans people wanted unisex spaces why have they made no moves to get them?

I believe that is the best thing for society

Bollocks! The only people it is best for is people who present as opposite to their birth sex.

for children in particular, there is certainly much more of an emphasis on treating boys and girls the same and avoiding segregation unless necessary.

I don't believe sex segregation starts to have much value until a significant number of boys start behaving like little pricks... (around year 4ish? depending on the prevalent parenting styles)

2nd wave, man excluding feminists have been hugely influential in creating the progressive climate in Sweden.

massivelyouting I did. I don't play word salad, I speak directly.

Bollocks! The only people it is best for is people who present as opposite to their birth sex.

I don't think so. I think any segregation where not strictly needed simply reinforces that we are different, that we need 'special treatment', that our brains work differently, that we have different callings in life.

After all, we have moved from a society with a lot of sex segregation (the notion of separate spheres, 'men's work'/'women's work', men's clubs) towards a place where although we still have fundamental inequalities, we have more parity. If girls are taught from the outset that they need to go to different clubs, maybe even different schools, to boys, there will be an inevitable sense that the sexes are inherently different. It kind of treats as unchangeable male behaviour and instead suggests that women need protection from it.

massivelyouting Derailing a thread to complain about me saying bollocks is pointless. I swear, MN allows me to swear. I say fuck off, cunt, shit, bastard etc. That's me.

until a significant number of boys start behaving like little pricks

And that's what we need to target. Wasn't that gender-neutral school experiment quite successful? So many parents just drum stereotypes into their kids- there's a thread elsewhere on this site where the mum just casually talks about how the girl gets the pink toy and the boy the blue one. I see so many people treating their sons differently to their daughters and then it just continues at school because rather than tackling the boys' behaviour, people label it as 'boys will be boys' and say that the girls need respite from it and need to attend sex-segregated groups.

I don't think so. I think any segregation where not strictly needed simply reinforces that we are different

We are fucking different. Women need separate spaces because of that. Women need spaces that keep them away for certain things due to biology A man doesn't need to change sanitary protection, rinse out mooncups, won't be effected by a miscarriage when not at home. They won't have their waters break in the middle of a shopping centre of start their period while buying fruit and veg. We are different.

massivelyouting So you've said!

We are fucking different. Women need separate spaces because of that. Women need spaces that keep them away for certain things due to biology

Of course. That is why we need single sex spaces for things like medical treatment or communal changing areas or showers. Where I do not believe we are talking about biology is when we say boys/men act like pricks and women and girls need to attend different schools and different organisations. Furthermore, biology does not impact on someone's ability to be a carer, to be empathetic, to study particular subjects, to wear different clothes. That is all socialisation, often claiming to rely on biology, such as saying women are better carers because they carry children etc. It all rather conveniently equates to female oppression.

I do see the argument but I wonder whether, long-term, more segregation and segregation not based on biology, is really the answer.

segregation not based on biology

To clarify, by that I mean segregation not based on biological reasons/functions. Such as girls' schools, girls' colleges at uni, girl guides etc.

Biology is meaningless