Third Spaces

[OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon]

As far as I can make out, third spaces would be a way to:

• preserve sex segregated spaces for women who wanted to use them
• allow trans people to use a mixed sex space (that could have individual cubicles) which would afford them privacy and also prevent them from being outed as it would be a mixed sex space rather than a trans space
• prevent provision for people with disabilities to remain unimpinged.

Does this seem a suitable solution for loos/changing rooms?

I know there are wider issues but on this specific one, I think this would work for everyone and respects everyone's needs. Leaving aside those who will want to access women's spaces for validation, am I missing any legitimate concerns about third spaces?

I think that you make good points Pain. The tsunami of hate which would befall anyone in the public eye pushing for a third space would certainly be an eye opener for your average person in the street.

Not going to happen. It’s about validation, not safety. Anything less than full access to women’s spaces is an admission TWANW.

When a male comes out at work, say in an office or academic environment, they know perfectly well they will be safe in the male toilets alongside their male colleagues; they would, quite rightly, have HR firmly on their side were any unpleasantness to occur.

So why do many choose to use the ladies.....?

Tbh, I have little sympathy for any transperson given that situation. They are in no danger.

Agree OP. This covers biological reality and gender identity so is provision of privacy, dignity and safety for all. What is there for anyone to complain about with this model ....?

Men's loos/spaces - just me

Good typo

I wonder if there is a positive campaign that could frame this?

Like 'breastfeeding friendly businesses'

e.g. The Mayor of London and several London boroughs have launched a Women's Safety at Night scheme for bars and clubs: www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/pledge-to-improve-womens-safety-at-night

Its principles include one on design

Empower women with the correct safety information and clear guidance to confidently use all public spaces

Ensure that planning and the built environment factor in and support women’s safety at night, recognising good practice and existing campaigns across London and broaden them to cover all public spaces

This would need to include design of facilities which ensure safety when using the toilets both for transwomen and women.

MaverickSnoopy

"My sister who is pro self id and who was raped a few years ago says she is terrified of 3rd spaces. She says she is worried a man could push her into a cubicle and rape her without anyone knowing."

I am so sorry to hear about what happened to your sister.

Just to clarify my position, I am in favour of third spaces, which would always be in conjunction with Female and male single sex spaces, so any female could use the female only if they wish to.

If we only have a 'third' space available it would not be a genuine third space, it would be the only option, which I am not advocating for.

"Conversely I (who has also been raped) am terrified of the male sex in my female only space for the same reason. Not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome." Again, I am so sorry for your situation. We really do need to keep women's needs front and centre for female only spaces, and making provision for everyone else should help this, I hope.

In terms of validation any person who uses a third space can feel confident they are just as important as anyone else, it is space for all, and if these spaces were used by males and females, presumably everyone can feel that others who do identify the way they do, are there. That seems significant.

I know some people may be using the toilets for validation but I do think there is more to it.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF "People just need to use the space for their sex, anything else is indulgence IMHO." You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but the issue won't go away. There will be people not feeling able to use loos, holding it in, not going out, etc, we need to find solutions. Not everyone will be happy but if we can provide for most people that would be good.

PainInTheEar at "Thu 20-Dec-18 12:53:20"

"So in an ideal situation there would be:..." etc, yes, ...

Women's loos/spaces
Men's loos/spaces
Third spaces

....that would be good.

starcrossedseahorse "It would have the happy outcome of potentially keeping transmen safer and they are a group we seldom hear from." 100%

I do not understand the argument about people having sex in toilets! Disabled toilets don;t have massive gaps at the bottom of the door, neither do broom cupboards, yet we don;t insist that these places have big gaps at the top and bottom of doors!

You've seen through my plan - I just want the men's loos all to myself

At the moment, where there have been set ups such as this and a transperson has rejected the third space, the media coverage has been sympathetic to the transperson and glossed over why exactly they think it is so awful to use a third space. The issue of third spaces are never full exlpored, just rejected outright.

If we can proactively point out to people the benefits and the very few disadvantages (cost) in conversations etc, then I can't see why people wouldn't see that it's a perfectly suitable model. Unless of course anyone can think of any reasons to reject it!

Incidentally, PureGyms implemented this system - although I don't think it's their official policy - and caught some flack for it so if you would like to support them on this, an email address I found online is: [email protected]

Sorry

yet we don;t insist that these places have big gaps at the top and bottom of doors and we don;t hear of people always being thrown out of them for having sex in them!

Maverick I didn't see the bit about you being raped. Sorry that you and your sister went through that

Yes i missed that as well maverick

Im the same as italian, 3rd spaces in conjunction with male and female only

As far as I understood from some twitter exchange, randomers (I can't really speak for the authenticity of whoever was writing, now, can I) don't want them because they would be

• outing (ie, they want to be seen as women or men, and they want the camouflage to work)
• a potential for bullying for being 'different'
• (for the woman-facers: easily criticised as superficially a Jim Crow situation)

So even when discounting the validation/narcissistic tendencies of some, basically third spaces are only good for people who are secure in their identity and not for those who have latched onto 'trans'/non-binary / rainbow as a way of reacting to bullying for being 'different', as they see it as undermining the cover story

Accessible provision is based on need, but for many the need seems to be not to be singled out. As in many cases, there isn't just one magic solution. There are many different and contrasting people and rationales in the TG 'umbrella'. It has to be a policy choice, and of course it MUST consider and ACCOMMODATE women first, rather than run roughshod over them

Sorry but that is where I would draw the line and start to get more than a little bit pissed off.
Our safety as women is more important than someone else's insecurity about their (chosen) 'identity'.

I don't understanding the outing argument though. Third spaces wouldn't be "ALL WHO WALK HERE BE TRANS" labelled, they'd be mixed-sex spaces just like those that are being rolled out currently with apparently no complaints (from the majority of trans people). It's just that I and others are suggesting that alongside these, we'd also maintain sex-segregated spaces.

How would it be outing if a lot of/most people use the third spaces? It would be if it was only for trans people but that's not what the suggestion is.

Our safety as women is more important than someone else's insecurity about their (chosen) 'identity'.

Quite. It’s not a complex ethical dilemma between two equally valid points of view, it’s the health and safety of 50% of the population vs the psychic discomfort of < 1%.

To be honest me too.
I feel sorry for victims of bullying of course, but do not feel the need for a type of systematic protection for victims of bullying that doesn't exclude the bullies themselves, and moreover doesn't consider at all the interests of existing users (basically instituting humanshieldom for human females).
The solution is clearly to normalise 'different' by giving it its own, special third space, on the one hand, and to deal with bullying separately. But I can see that it is my policy choice.
It's pretty much the anti-vax stuff again: some people selfishly want to avoid what they think is an evil (we know it isn't but it makes them feel good to think it is and they're specially smart for knowing that) and not give a fig for the well-being of all the other people who could be catching and suffering from the illness. AND that's why I have a whole bucketful of dislike for (some of) them.

Beagadorsrock

"As far as I understood from some twitter exchange, randomers ... don't want them because they would be..."

• outing .. not if they are also being used by natal men and women, e.g. they are not trans spaces they are not non-binary spaces, they are anyone spaces.
• a potential for bullying for being 'different' - again if lots of others were using them this should not apply

"- (for the woman-facers: easily criticised as superficially a Jim Crow situation)" I do not understand what this means?

"...basically third spaces are only good for people who are secure in their identity and not for those who have latched onto 'trans'/non-binary / rainbow as a way of reacting to bullying for being 'different', as they see it as undermining the cover story"

But a great many trans people are now 'out'. They have twitter with their trans status proudly on it.

If they do not want to be out, they can use third spaces along with all the other natal males and females and would be in the same place as everyone else.

"Accessible provision is based on need, but for many the need seems to be not to be singled out." I think lots of natal women and men would use third spaces. I would certainly be a fan. I can't imagine many men relish going into male loos so unisex/gender neutral single cubicals could be very popular.

Third spaces will be a disaster. They will result in removal of single-sex spaces. It has already happened, in the form of unisex 'changing villages' in sports centres.

Third spaces may not validate trans people's 'gender identity', but they still validate the concept of gender identity and the nonsense that if you are male you can be anything other than man or boy.

Third spaces may not validate trans people's 'gender identity', but they still validate the concept of gender identity and the nonsense that if you are male you can be anything other than man or boy

Even if they are labelled "men" "women" "mixed-sex/unisex"?

The suggestion isn't to get rid of sex segregated spaces in favour of mixed sex spaces, it's to retain sex segregated spaces as well as having mixed sex spaces. Even if it is only theoretical, what are the objections to that?

It sounds wonderful, but unfortunately the very ones that will make females feel unsafe are thoses that are screaming TWAW, so they will still walk into the women’s spaces. The decent, genuine transsexuals will use the mixed sex toilets because they respect the feelings of women. Ironically the males that some of us would have been comfortable sharing with are the ones that respect us enough to leave us to our female spaces.

You don't need mixed-sex spaces if single sex spaces are available.

A lot of companies won’t be willing to splash out on third spaces as they perceive the massive sudden increase in trans-identifying people as an ephemeral phenomena and don’t want to be lumbered with something that is going to be as popular as Tamagotchi five years from now.

At the moment though, the Equalities Act allows for people of the opposite sex but with a GRC or the intention of getting a GRC to use spaces that don't align with their actual sex. That is the current law. Third spaces would be a way to accommodate the concerns that law was meant to address (the safety/privacy of gender dysphoric people) whilst crucially not depriving women of single sex spaces.

I agree that only two spaces reflect what is biologically possible. Reality, essentially. But we don't even have the right to single sex spaces now. Third spaces would make that possible again.

Yes you do Jelly. Unisex spaces are needed for biological males who deny their sex. Pandering to their self belief that they can magically change sex places women at risk from predatory biological males.

Italiangreyhound

The third point? during those Twitter exchanges I had people say, TWAW therefore to offer them a separate space is akin to the 'separate but equal' scenarios of the Jim Crow Southern US laws (spaces for whites/spaces for blacks).
That is an argument that would only be valid if :

• TW were W (I dispute this)
• and TW versus old-style women were exactly the same as Black women versus White women.

That's why I put it in brackets: it's the TWAW argument, which piggybacks on other historical struggles. All sorts of wrong.

I merely put down here the arguments I have seen against 3rd spaces. I do not agree with them!

At the moment though, the Equalities Act allows for people of the opposite sex but with a GRC or the intention of getting a GRC to use spaces that don't align with their actual sex. That is the current law.

The EA allows for trans people to be barred from services provided to people of the sex that they identify as, so long as it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example of a legitimate aim is the health, safety and welfare of individuals. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/justifying-discrimination/