**Solution** 'CIS' women and transwoman form a class together

[2BthatUnnoticed]

By ‘cis’ I mean only women who ID as ‘cis’ (CW). This is only a small proportion of the world’s 3.8 billion women, but politically very influential.

Most women want some sex-based protections, and access to certain sex-segregated spaces when in need – refuges, shelters, rape crisis centres, prison.

Some women, usually 'CW,' do not – they support removing sex-based protections for gender-based ones. [Many CW believe "TWAW" (regardless of transition) and that any risk of predators assuming a trans ID to access women’s spaces is minimal.]

To solve this fairly for all – why don’t CW form a class with trans women (TW)? Leaving women who want single-sex spaces to do so?

(Eg 1) In Vancouver, 2/3 rape crisis centres admit TW. TRAs are trying to get the one female-only one (VRR) closed (incidentally I've worked in a shelter - there are genuine reasons for single sex). Instead, why not have a 4th centre specifically for CW/TW - and respect the female-only centre as is.

(Eg 2) Youth hostels could have (1) male dorms, (2) female dorms and (3) CW/TW dorms. This would respect everyone and keep everyone happy:

• CW would be with TW as they wish – with gender ID in common.
• TW would be amongst those who believe TWAW - gender affirming.
• Women who want and need a female only space would have it.

I think there would be high profile people happy to champion the TW/CW cause (eg Sally Hines, Mhairi Black, Munroe Bergdof, Danielle Muscato).

What do you think?

Are there CW/TW posters about - would you support this?

Most “women’s” Refuges currently admit TW. They will lose their funding if they don’t. This policy is causing harm. Do you support it being changed as proposed?

Post edited by MNHQ at OP's request

That whiteboard training was from a US rape refuge centre. It was part of a “Re-education” programme for workers, who were struggling.

This is why female-only spaces are so important.

But how could TRAs refuse, if their CW allies set up a Refuge with them? They could be like “haha, ours is better than the T**F’s!”

@bd67th don’t be disheartened!

Most workers think its bonkers, but can’t speak or they will lose their jobs. I’m grateful to whomever smuggled out that photo.

I’m hoping you’re all being unduly pessimistic. I’m sure we’ll have TW and CW posters along to say they love it 🤞

(Jameela Jamil and Danielle Muscato have collaborated before, although not re Refuges afaik)

One of the arguments against transpeople campaigning for their own spaces is the impracticality of having spaces for such a small percentage of the population.

Tra also maintain that it's a minority of women who don't want to 'share' with male transpeople.

Why don't male transpeople and their supporters campaign together for feminine gendered spaces away from sex segregated spaces, if there is such a big demand for it?

Yes exactly, that’s what I’m getting at.

Women who do not want sex-segregation, can have shelters with TW.

The rest of us have single-sex.

I like your idea 2BthatUnnoticed. :)

It's an idea, the rejection of which would show up the agenda. The agenda that says validation is only worthwhile if it's been coerced. "It's ma'am" for example, shows it up in all its intimidatory glory.

And there would definitely be an objection. And it would show up the agenda.

But even giving houseroom to the idea, is moving the Overton window. And I'm not prepared to do it. I'm not prepared to focus on the solution for men. I'm only prepared to focus on maintaining sex segregation for women. The other part of the equation isn't my responsibility. And I have no motivation to solve it. Not my problem.

OMG, that pic of Jamil and Big Dan. That’ll be embarrassing for her (Jamil, for the avoidance of doubt) in ten to 15 years’ time.

Hi 2b , to clarify the ‘you’ wasn’t you personally 😀

It shouldn’t be our problem. I agree.

But right now, there is a woman living back in a supremely violent home, because living alongside [a male stranger] triggered horrific anxiety.

A woman who left rehab early because having to sleep alongside [ ] was unbearable (survivor of CSE).

An outreach service for prostituted girls (12+) which had to close, because homeless men would “identify as women” to access the space.

For these women, single sex spaces have already been lost. With dire consequences.

How do we get them back? By building public support, so that legislators have to listen.

I like your idea 2BthatUnnoticed. agreed!

the rejection of which would show up the agenda agreed!

2B you’re being thoughtful as usual, and presenting solutions, and I like your solutions. But I’m a reasonable human without an agenda.

Honestly like others have said it’s all about the validation. However you slice and dice us, the portion you give ‘us’ will be coveted by ‘them’.

A small window is reading for eg McK twitter. Even the ‘allies’ if not subservient enough, craven enough, get short shrift.

They can use "womxn," we don't want it but it could really work for this.

I mean there would be "men," "women," and "womxn and enbies," spaces. Sorted.

But even giving houseroom to the idea, is moving the Overton window. And I'm not prepared to do it. I'm not prepared to focus on the solution for men. I'm only prepared to focus on maintaining sex segregation for women. The other part of the equation isn't my responsibility. And I have no motivation to solve it. Not my problem.

My position exactly. Nothing more needs to be said.

How do we get them back?

I’d impetuously say I’d open my home but I know that’s fool hardy, dangerous, and doesn’t fix the problem.
It’s also starting again.

I don’t have a quick answer to your question. It’s all been so royalty fucked.

so that legislators have to listen they have listened, I just don’t think they can hear.

Yup. I’m with Datun.
No TW is going to countenance being segregated. The thrill is in forcing unwilling women to accept and validate them, and have them punished when they don’t capitulate.
Where’s the fun in having your own space with a few handmaidens? The fun is in forcing disobedient women to do as they are told.
No. They won’t be interested. And neither am I.

Madigan suggested something similar as an attempted insult recently to much hilarity and I’ve had it suggested by another AWA on Twitter, so both sides might be on board!

The AWA seemed to think that if they provided a bigot room for us, then they could get on with their co-womaning with all the willing co-womaners.

Of course, we bigots surprised them by embracing the idea... and pointing out that the bigot room probably should be quite sizeable...

This might be controversial but I am reasonably happy to accept fully transitioned transwomen into single sex spaces, i.e. No penis! My problem is with the perverts and piss takers. Fully transitioned transwomen in my experience tend to be 'straight' and unthreatening. I must point out it is not the being gay I have an issue with but clearly some transwomen are using self ID to gain access to women's spaces for sexual reasons. Before self ID wasn't this the situation anyway - very occasionally you'd have a 'genuine' trans person accessing female spaces. The exception I would make is for crisis centres etc where it made other occupants uncomfortable. Sorry I am new to this so if my views are rubbish - or my use of terminology - please explain why.

fully transitioned transwomen into single sex spaces, i.e. No penis!

bigvig it’s a shame the convo has even got to this cos I’m sure men have been using women’s spaces forever and we can argue til the cows and sheep and giraffes come home about the rights or wrongs or how it made women feel. In the main, I’d say we just got on with it.

Your aim is not so much controversial but unmanageable - who’s goanna be on the door to ‘coat check’ what’s in someone’s pants? Will I have to go to my Dr to get a cert to say I’m a fully paid up vulva / vagina carrier?

Also, some men will go ‘all the way’ but it doesn’t make them ‘not predators’

Straight/gay/bi/abstaining is not really relevant imho

fully transitioned transwomen into single sex spaces, i.e. No penis!

I can't go along with this because I am opposed to these surgeries even in adults.

I understand why people would make that distinction but worry it would encourage more people to go the surgical route than is already the case. So for me it will always be a flat no, no one born with a penis.

big I know what you mean - but how can you implement a policy “Genuine TW allowed, but no perverts or piss takers!”

You can’t.

Meanwhile... women who ID as “cis” are telling the rest of us we are T**Fs for wanting a female only space.

I am saying - CW, you guys have a space with TW. Stop forcing it on us though - we’ll have a female space. Peace out ✌️

It’s not a bad idea in some respects.
But in reality I think the vast majority of women really couldn’t care less about TW, don’t often come across them, and aren’t that exercised about which toilets or prisons they use.

You’ve come up with a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist for most of the world imo.

Wouldn't work, surely there can't be many (same) women who call themselves 'cis', and even if there were then trans women would still want to use the places where actual women don't want them to be. It's all about power as far as I can see.

@Fieldofgreycorn

Just because most of the public don’t care about the safety of women in shelters or in prison, doesn’t mean they don’t matter.

The exception I would make is for crisis centres etc where it made other occupants uncomfortable. Sorry I am new to this so if my views are rubbish - or my use of terminology - please explain why.

bigvig, this is very definitely a position, and one which some women hold. They begin to hold it less, though, as they see the problems with it, to be honest.

First of all, it's unenforceable. And you could leave the objection there. There is no way you can tell if someone has, or hasn't, a penis.

But secondly, not having a penis does not stop male pattern offending. There is nothing to suggest that castration affects offending rates.

Thirdly, you need to think about the women in this scenario. Their objection to men is not because they know that a particular man poses a specific threat, but because men as a cohort pose a threat. And for their own dignity and safety and privacy, most women would rather be in sex segregated place. Which means any representative of that cohort is a problem.

My father-in-law, for instance, is delightful and wouldn't hurt a fly. I don't want to get undressed in front of him, nor would I expect any other woman to. Likewise my teenage son's friends. Lovely fellows. I don't want to share a changing room with them tho. So it's not about a specific threat, as such.

No one ever seems to think of the women's reaction in this.

And lastly The very notion that a man having cosmetic surgery, or thinking in a certain way, is a woman, is wrong.

Women are fully fledged human beings. A concept and and entity in their own right. With shared characteristics that place them in the same category. Characteristics that, incidentally, lead them to be oppressed across the globe. Characteristics that no man on the planet can possess.

They should have the right to be recognised as such.

A man without a penis is a eunuch, not a woman.