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?

The sex exemptions in the Equality Act allow for sex segregation as proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The exemptions mean that gender reassigned individuals can be filtered out.

Dignity, privacy and safety for WAG are legitimate aims. It is therefore proportionate to create a 3rd space to achieve that.

Many (20%?) of women have been sexually assaulted; in many instances resulting in PTSD and fear or men/male bodies.

Many women are Muslim and need male free spaces.

Intersectional feminism and also the Equality Act would endorse a third space for the most vulnerable women. We can make sure everyone is treated with respect and compassion here.

GardenGeek

transubstantiation!

I laughed. But then yes. It’s that in a nutshell isn’t it? Then I stop laughing, because actually, the use of language to police belief is kind of scary, historically.

Science aims to make the world a better place through knowledge. Part of that is very clear, very precise ways of describing stuff. I can talk to colleagues with minimal mutual native language overlap because the words we use to describe stuff mean something. Definitions are important.

And that’s just in a lab. When we are in the real world, and we are talking about laws to protect half the population from a significantly more violent other half, then the words, and their meanings, are to be taken seriously.

Sex - has a meaning. A set, impartial, objective meaning.
Woman - has a meaning. Set, impartial, objective. It does not mean ‘giraffe.’

Speak plainly and honestly. How is biological sex a GC construct?

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.

If someone has PTSD - which was the context - they are entitled to a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 for their disability, if there is one. That might mean a more private space away from both trans women, butch lesbians and any masculine women. That does not signify a difference between trans women and other women it is a recognition that some women might have a disability which requires adjustments to be made.

The sex exemptions in the Equality Act allow for sex segregation as proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The exemptions mean that gender reassigned individuals can be filtered out.

Some gender reassigned individuals in some circumstances.

That does not signify a difference between trans women and other women

If there is no difference, what have the former transitioned ^from*?

If there is no difference after said transition do you believe humans can change sex?

Opps page gad not updated for GardenGeek was for the arse comment!

The religious belief in gender identity really is alarming when you get past the initial "this is fucking ridiculous, surely everyone realizes that" stage and it starts to dawn on you that some people actually believe that shit and other people don't believe but are perfectly happy to force everyone else to pretend we do under threat of retribution if we refuse to play along. We've even got volunteers for the position of Witchfinder General and a whole army of inquisitors to deal with on social media.

Oh, I see. You accept that people with disabilities have rights (entirely rightly), but women (except the super-duper special ones who aren't revelling in the elitism of their biology) really don't have any rights to boundaries at all.

The religious belief in gender identity really is alarming when you get past the initial "this is fucking ridiculous, surely everyone realizes that" stage and it starts to dawn on you that some people actually believe that shit and other people don't believe but are perfectly happy to force everyone else to pretend we do under threat of retribution if we refuse to play along. We've even got volunteers for the position of Witchfinder General and a whole army of inquisitors to deal with on social media.

Yep. Gilead awaits.

My stance is no penises in women only spaces but how you would Police that I dread to think

I think most people would agree on no visible penises in women only spaces, but even that is cultural as in France and Belgium a woman might need to pass a man stood using a urinal to get to the ladies cubicle.

No, there was no mention of PTSD. You just said “issues” and “problems” Snappity.

If you think women need to have some kind of medical gatekeeping in order to access spaces free from male bodies then that’s something we can discuss though.

If there is no difference after said transition do you believe humans can change sex?

I believe that trans women are female but their sex was wrongly assigned a birth.

@snappity Human reproduction requires humans of two distinct types in order to work. What word do you use to differentiate between those types?

There’s something of a parallel with the GRC process isn’t there Lemonjello

Nobody is assigned a sex at birth. Sex is observed.

If your statement is true then what have transwomen transitioned from?

Oh Snappity please get some empathy and human fellow feeling!

I haven’t been diagnosed with PTSD. I just don’t want to share my work toilet space with male bodied people because I want privacy and dignity and to share that space only with other female bodied people. (Who are welcome to express whatever gender identity they want in that space). Just no penises in the ladies’ please. I can’t know who else may have PTSD but that’s a further argument for not having men who identify as women in the women’s toilets.

Is that so much to ask?

I agree a third space is needed, we have spaces for those with disabilities and that was entirely achievable so why not for trans people.

One unisex loo along with the usual male/female

One changing room for unisex alongside male/female

Prisons should have a wing or at least an area that is safe for trans people to feel safe. It is not possible to share the female prisons, as this would put women in danger possibly

Women's refuges should be entirely safe and protected, as should any other areas where there is serious and present vulnerability.

Swimming pools, social clubs, gentlemans clubs, working mens clubs should be open and available to all. It should be a criminal offence to discriminate on the grounds of sex in the places above, these areas do not hold vulnerable or protected people and children.

I agree that boys and girls should be able to wear trousers for school or a skirt.

Where possible gender should be removed, passports etc it is not important to anyone what sex a person should be.

If this stops being a fight for women and their identity and protection and becomes a fight for everyone to be entirely equal regardless of sex then we might go some way to have the kind of society of true equality. It feels a long way off, but some progress has been made.

garden I absolutely agree but that will be the view they will take of it

When any gender reassigned individual makes use of a facility meant for the sex with which they claim to identify, the sex-based rights of everyone else using that facility are thrown out of the window. It doesn't matter if none of them have PTSD, or if none of them even notice the transperson among them. Their rights have been reduced to naught by the rights of another based on that person's feelings of what they are (or, at least, how they feel they should be seen and treated)

The exemptions in the EA are a joke. To me, the "legitimate aim" is the maintenance of same-sex provision and the "proportionate means" of achieving this is to bar all people not of that sex. Sex, meaning "either of the two main categories into which humans...are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions". It is absolutely biological. You are the one trying to construct new categories that we can use instead.

Third spaces for anyone who wishes to use them would be a solution if space and expense would allow for it. Everyone would have the choice of two options and transpeople would not be segregated and so outed or made a target of every time they used such a facility. It may be that, in time, unisex options prove to be by far the most popular and therefore have to be expanded, with the same-sex spaces reduced in size due to their relative lack of popularity. But the option should always be there. Right now they are rendered meaningless by allowing transpeople to choose where they want to go.

Yes Elletorro, there is a bit of a parallel. I guess maybe what Snappity is proposing is self ID for trans people, but then a panel of medical personnel that evaluate and sign off women’s applications for access to segregated space?

The exemptions in the EA are a joke. To me, the "legitimate aim" is the maintenance of same-sex provision and the "proportionate means" of achieving this is to bar all people not of that sex.

Agreed. Some spaces being strictly single sex should be the default, not something that women have to beg for and justify to a committee.