What's wrong with fighting for the third space?

[DJLippy]

Can't we resolve all these Trans vs feminist issues with a third space option?

Male/Female as well as unisex intimate spaces
Unisex for those who do not mind (or don't want to wait ages for the bog!) But M/F spaces respect those who have religious reasons for intimate spaces away from the opposite sex and also people who need these spaces because of trauma.

Prison's for transgender folk who feel threatened in male spaces.
Nobody should be at risk from sexual violence

Domestic violence and rape crisis support services for transwomen.
Don't trans folk deserve specialist services? If I was a victim of assault I would want people who understood me to provide support

This is all I want and I am sure many women on this sight feel the same. Is this a valid working compromise?

No, I don't want to use the gender neutral

Trans want mixed sex
Some women want mixed sex
Blokes don't seem to care

Only women want the sex specific.

So it should be the gents going gender neutral, obvs.

Remember that separation is based on sex, not biological sex. Biological sex is the construct added by gender critical feminists.

Walk me through this statement snappity because it makes no sense to me. Sex is sex. It is biological. What are you saying the difference between sex and biological sex actually is?

Because obviously, Snappity can't argue that the law allows for sex exemptions, and Snappity knows the only way to overcome that is to claim that sex means something other than the biological characteristics of each class of reproductive capacity.

It's the other way round. The law already uses a definition of sex which isn't entirely biological - I think the ECJ judgement in the MB case is a good example of that. Gender critical feminists want to reverse that by redefining sex as reproductive or genetic sex, for which biological sex is used as a shorthand.

But, whichever way round it is, one of the key disputes between trans people and gender critical feminists is the meaning of the term sex, and in particular whether woman includes any trans women.

Remember that separation is based on sex, not biological sex. Biological sex is the construct added by gender critical feminists

and if this is the case explain why it is that you also asked "How do you make urinals gender (or sex) neutral"?

Snappily does agree that women who have issues sharing with transwomen should be entitled to segregated spaces.

I don't believe that spaces for women should exclude a particular group of women.

I’m sorry - what’s the difference between sex and biological sex? Sex is just sex. It’s an immutable biological fact. It’s not a GC ‘construct’

How are they women? How do you class a man growing up male with a male body along side babies aborted for being female befire their identity could even be possibly be known

What links the two snappity .? Biologically?

If Snappity can suggest a way to socially deconstruct my uterus so I don't need to send DH to buy tampons on his way home from work later I'm sure it would be much appreciated.

I’m sorry - what’s the difference between sex and biological sex? Sex is just sex. It’s an immutable biological fact. It’s not a GC ‘construct’

Imputing the word biological into the Equality Act 2010 is a GC construct - and that is what I was talking about although lots of people are quoting me out context - because it denies the Gender Recognition Act

Sex is not a construct.

It’s an immutable, quantifiable fact. Do you actually see a biological fact as a construct ? I can’t wrap my head around that as a point of view. It’s illogical.

Gender is a construct. Do you mean gender snappity?

Sorry not ftft yet.

A third space will never be on the cards because it costs money. Money to accommodate less than 1% of the population. Self id is a way of saving the government money. Why would they introduce somthing that will cost millions. The government don't care about women, they care about money and looking good for election time. Teresa May and her crew think that self id will be there gay marriage and make them look progressive and caring.

Who's going to pay for the third space in prisons, schools, hospitals? I'm against self id but I can think of alot of things I'd rather tax payer money be spent on rather than a third toilet.

The fact is the system we have now works. If a doctor certifies you as genuine trans then you can use women's facilities. This minimises the risk to women and let's people with dysphoria live there lives as comfortably as possible. But the government don't want to fund the doctors to diagnose, they want to take NHS funding away from trans services. So they want to change to self id. Everyone wins, except women (genuine trans included).

GardenGeek

Yep. Trying to argue against the belief that biology is an 'added construct' is, I now see, as futile as a chat with a bowl of jelly.

Imputing the word biological into the Equality Act 2010 is a GC construct - and that is what I was talking about although lots of people are quoting me out context - because it denies the Gender Recognition Act

The wording of the act has no bearing on the reality of biology. It’s technically possible that a law could be drafted this afternoon that says that giraffes can fly. It would just be words on paper. It would have no bearing on the reality, which is that giraffes cannot fly, never have been able to fly and would need several thousand years and some seriously specific evolutionary conditions to evolve into a flight capable organism. At which point they would no longer be a giraffe.

Are you saying you believe the words on the paper affect material reality?

Let’s explore this concept. That words can alter the laws of physics, the reality around us.

This concept is prevalent in religions and superstitions - such as papal bulls of forgiveness for example. Or spells written on paper and offered to the gods.

It’s effectively a faith based concept. I’m hoping nobody believes that you can alter a scientifically verified fact by writing a spell or law down.

Do you believe that snappity? Is there or is there not a materially real plane of existence and if so can it or can it not be altered by spells?

I don't believe that spaces for women should exclude a particular group of women.

Yes you do Snappity, you said of your own accord that women who had issues sharing with transwomen should have segregated spaces. Hang on and I’ll find your quote.

Thanks for proving my point, Snappity. No one knows what you mean when you say 'sex'. Which I presume is the point, as you likely believe there is no meaningful objective definition of woman, and therefore clarity is anathema to you. All you can say for sure is that womaning should be flexible enough to shove over and let transwomen in, and you genuinely don't give a fuck about all the issues people repeatedly bring up about those women who we define that way because of biology, because that's not what you're interested in.
Which is fine, of course, you have your priorities. But it will do nothing to convince those concerned for women's rights that you are someone who should reasonably have a greater input in these decisions.

Thatjourno you said "While we are at it, might as make them seat on the back of buses" but we already have special seats on buses for those who struggle to use the standard seats. They are in addition to the standard ones just like the third space suggestion.
Unless you think spaces/seats for disabled/elderly/injured people are discrimination?

Not that I'm with the 3rd space idea. I'm a man so I'll vote for the men's toilets being unisex as a workaround. Makes no difference to me.

But I think we know that won't satisfy the need at all.

Transubstantiation! This penis is female because someone said the magic words over it. And now you have to put it in your mouth or else we'll have you excommunicated for heresy.

Services do exist like Project Fearless but I don't think they support that many people so I imagine funding is a struggle.

Grassroots might be a way forward. Like the way lesbians funded and staffed lesbian line.

Here’s what you wrote Snappity:

Because if for instance there were 6 rooms with (say) half kept for women with actual issues of being with trans women, the service could be inclusive while still meeting the need if some women had an actual problem.

There we go.

In this quote you are using “women” and “transwomen” to recognise the difference between the two. You are seeing that we need to distinguish between the two groups which is great.

Then you recognise that women may have “issues” sharing facilities with transwomen. It’s reassuring that you have listened to what we have been saying and have recognised our needs.

And finally you say that some rooms could be kept aside for these women who have issues sharing with transwomen.

That means there are segregated spaces for these women!

The problem is that as Transwomen insist that they are women why wouldn’t they be able to use women’s only spaces?
They demand to be treated as women and if that is the case then they should be in women only spaces if they want to rather than a unisex place.
My stance is no penises in women only spaces but how you would Police that I dread to think