Why segregate by gender?

[FeminaSum]

I've seen this point raised in passing across a few threads before but want to give it its own.

Let's take the TRA position. Biology and biological sex are irrelevant, or at the very least unimportant. What matters is someone's gender identity. That is what makes them a man or a woman. This is also separate from their 'gender expression' so you can wear skirts and heels and identify as a man. Or be Danielle Muscato and identify as a woman. It's about an internal sense of self.

Accepting those hypothetical premises, what is the reason for dividing changing rooms between those who have a 'man' inner essence and those who have a 'woman' one? Why is it necessary?

When teenagers go camping, what reason is there to divide the tents between those who experience a 'girl' gender identity and those who experience a 'boy' one? What about boarding school dormitories - why is it important for young people to sleep in a room with people who have the same internal sense of identity as them, and wrong to share with those who have the opposite identity?

Why should sports competitions be split up based on whether people identify as men or women? Remember, it is identity that matters, not body parts, hormones or presentation. Why shouldn't everyone compete together? As a bonus, that means that those who identify as something other than 'man' or 'woman' can also join in!

I know (and share) the GC position on this. I'm honestly curious about what the rationale is on the other side. Is there one?

I have just asked this question in a letter to my MP.

I'd like to know the answer to that one too.

To validate the trans peoples feelings obviously!

Unfortunately I think you might have it exactly right, Racecardriver. Since we already know that feelings matter more than facts where this ideology is concerned.

I'm working on a letter to my MP too, RogerAllamsFangirl. I've never done it before because I don't consider myself educated or articulate enough, but I've decided that this is important enough that a badly-written letter is better than none.

Well obviously when you put it like that, there is no rationale behind it.

Because like a lot of the other assertions, it's all smoke and mirrors. When you actually untangle it, there can be no rationale. Why should you have to share anything with people who feel 'feminine' or feel 'masculine'.

For bathing, or going to the toilet, or being punished for a crime?

Because it's not about that. It's about men who want to be treated in a certain way.

This holds true for both those with gender dysphoria and those with AGP. And it's why feminists recognise the inherent misogyny/sexism which underpins the lot.

For men with AGP, it's fairly self explanatory. It's arousing to be treated as a 'woman'. But only 'their version'. Im fact most of them will be quite upfront about it.

And I believe it holds true for men with gender dysphoria, too.

I believe they perceive women in a certain light. Possibly on a pedestal, possibly delicate, gentle, nurturing, softer, more empathetic, etc. And their rejection of everything 'male', becomes more understandable.

This is the way they want to, not just present, but be accepted as. In other words, treated as. It's still an idealised version.

(I wonder if continues to come down to the Madonna/whore scenario?)

So to answer your question, I believe they want to be categorised on that basis, so that they can be treated on that basis.

It's less about how they genuinely think or feel, and more about external treatment, or, in other words validation.

The fact that it's regressive for women, doesn't matter.

FeminaSum every letter is important & I am sure it wont be badly written!

Yeah I havent had an answer to this either. I particularly take offence to the fact we are being lied to - if changing rooms, wards, prisons etc are actually mixed sex they shoukd tell us to allow people to make their own decision/risk assessment. Of course they wont because it would be so unpopular...

Oh sorry, I missed that you were writing to your MP. I absolutely think it's a great question to ask. What is the point? What are the pluses? Can we have a list.

Thats such a good question, its impossible to give a sensible answer. Its better to send a physical letter as your MP isn't supposed to ignore it as they seem to do with emails.
Make sure you post an update if they reply.

They will just say because they feel like women inside.

Which of course, will then beg the next question, what on earth does that mean?

I might put that in your letter. If I was you.

Ask what that means.

Because it's only when you ask yourself these questions that you realise how sexist the answers are.

@Badgerthebodger used to have some template paragraphs for MP letters, if she's still around. If not, maybe @DoctorW knows of some. They're a good starting point to use for your own personal letter and make it easier to get started.

That makes a lot of sense, Datun - thank you for sharing your thoughts. So it is about validation, but not just the blatant 'validate my existence by using my pronouns' sort. There's a genuine perception that men and women are treated differently and they want the 'treatment' to match their gender identity, hence wanting access to single-gender spaces.

It fits with the assumptions made by most TRAs that everyone else is 'cis' and has these feelings, even when we explicitly say we don't. And why they see promoting single-sex spaces as 'exclusionary' because how dare we deny them access to the nice feminine spaces where they feel they belong?

I believe they perceive women in a certain light. Possibly on a pedestal, possibly delicate, gentle, nurturing, softer, more empathetic, etc. And their rejection of everything 'male', becomes more understandable.

This is the way they want to, not just present, but be accepted as. In other words, treated as. It's still an idealised version.

I used to think this, and I still think it's true of many homosexual transsexuals. My interactions with non-dysphoric individuals online, however, haven't led me to believe that they have any of the soft, gentle, nurturing qualities that would suggest an affinity for femininity. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I suppose they might want to be treated that way despite the fact that they aren't that way at all? There could be some self-delusion going on there.

Personally I feel it's important we have segregated areas based on sex. I would hate to get changed in the same changing areas (with no cubicles as men) because I don’t want them to stare at me. I feel a lot more uncomfortable whilst changing or going to the toilet if there is a man in the room

That's an excellent point. I've never seen it put like this before.

This is a great point and I would also really like to know the answer. Particularly with regard to privacy and dignity.

Why would I need privacy from someone’s internal feelings? They are already private as they are inside their head. Why is being segregated away from a feeling of ‘maleness’ important but wanting privacy from an actual male body beyond the pale?

To increase the likelihood of being able to borrow a fellow user’s mascara?

Can’t think of much else.

FeminaSum

The non-dysphoric individuals are a different kettle of fish altogether.

It's highly sexually motivated and they want to be treated as victims and/or humiliated, because being a woman is obviously the same as being a victim. But, only as long as they dictate how that goes. They don't genuinely want to be a victim.

But I think you're right about homosexual transsexuals. They embrace the idealised version of femininity.

Frankly, it must be a bit of a killer. It's quite easy for me, a woman, to embrace femininity one day, and masculinity the next.

I could probably get men to 'treat me' in a certain way, based on that. But only superficially. And temporarily.

I'm sure some transwomen see that as powerful, and it means we hold the keys to sexual gatekeeping.

A lot of men think that women have power because we are the ones who dictate whether they have sex or not.

I'm sure they think that if they become a woman, they will get to dictate how much sex they have.

The being treated in a certain way, to my mind, is underpinned by almost everything they say.

We had a transwoman on here a year or two back, who said they could only be 'vibrant' when they identified as a woman.

I think what they meant was they could only be accepted as vibrant when they identified as a woman.

They could only be treated as 'someone who is vibrant', when they weren't being a man.

I have a certain sympathy. It's all about patriarchal norms and what is and isn't acceptable for both men and women.

The difference is women see it as regressive and something to dismantle. The men don't genuinely see what women's lives are like. Only their version.

And of course, whilst they're famnying about trying to be vibrant, we are trying to stop being murdered - another patriarchal norm.

‘There could be some self delusion going on there.’
Chinny reckon?

I’m going to try not to speculate and wait for someone who advocates segregating by gender to elucidate.

Yes, I'd love to have the conversation. I truly would. Why segregate by gender?

"I would hate to get changed in the same changing areas (with no cubicles as men) because I don’t want them to stare at me."

Just to get in the lesbian angle as well -- the point for me isn't (just) staring or being worried they find you sexually attractive, it's the innate power imbalance caused by you having differently sexed bodies. So the only time I ever went naked in public (as opposed to a changing room BTW), was at Hampstead womens pond in the days it was female-only. Yes, there were quite a few lesbians about, but the different is even if someone is looking, it's different when they are the same as you. We share body-types, whether that was the very young, amazingly taut, no sagging anywhere versus the lived in and been around the block a few times, or young and not so confident versus the older my body, birthed kids, no wonder I look a bit lived-in and comfortable, this is my history............Even when you get daft women taking photos of older women and going 'yuck', we understand that the retort is 'you too will get old and potentially look like that unless you have a lot of plastic surgery and artificial internal scaffolding to hold you up and in and every which-way.............'

It's the innate similarity of female experience in female bodies, we understand/have (more) sympathy for other female bodies because they are potentially us, or might have been us. There is a link there and a potential understanding. Which I do not have with male bodies, they are different to mine. Even if it was safe, and I was with a bunch of totally gay men, say, I still would not want to be naked around them (this is aside from what naked gay men tend to get up to when they are naked with other gay men, I am not suggesting we all pile into a gay mixed naked sauna for laughs! ).

A lot of men think that women have power because we are the ones who dictate whether they have sex or not.

Except that we don't, there's this thing called rape, and that's why women fear men as a class and want segregated spaces.

I am not suggesting we all pile into a gay mixed naked sauna for laughs!

A gay sauna invasion would be one hell of a man friday action.

A gay sauna invasion would be one hell of a man friday action.

Obv go en masse for safety, not that gay men are likely to rape women but best to be safe.

This is a really useful way of phrasing thinks thanks @FeminaSum - for me particularly as I have an MP who supports theGC position albeit only because he's a dinosaur!

However if I give him this means to go to Penny M (his party colleague) and demand the answers then that is super easy for him!

SomeDyke

Yes I agree with that. There is a unity around the sameness that feels completely unthreatening.