We are so close to actually being in full agreement ...

[SoxiFodoujUmed]

It is a source of sadness to me that friends on the two different sides of the great Trans debate actually agree with one another on a huge host of things but can't seem to see how close their positions are to one another.

One of my facebook friends regularly posts stuff from things like "Let Toys be Toys" and other things about how harmful gender culture is (which obviously I like and share) but also posts horrible stuff about hating all TERFs which is obviously hurtful and upsetting.

Recently this friend posted a link which was actually an image taken from the below tumblr link, which was posted by a facebook page called "IntersectionalSJC" (About: Feminism has to be intersectional or it is pointless) but originally here: hunterinabrowncoat.tumblr.com/post/183398983896/i-feel-like-its-time-we-talked-about-how-there-is

and this is a lovely piece of writing, and so, so true:

I feel like it’s time we talked about how there is no such thing as universal accessibility. One space cannot be accessible for every single person. And I don’t say that to suggest that we just shouldn’t try making spaces as accessible as possible, but rather to say how important it is that we have multiple, different spaces.

A place that is well-lit and has lots of natural light will help many visually impaired people, but it will be a nightmare for anyone with photo-sensitivity. A small, dimly lit, quiet space might be ideal for somebody with sensory overload, but not for somebody with claustrophobia. A solarpunk utopia where the cities are filled with plants and trees and green might massively help the population’s depression and general spirits, but it would be hell for anyone with autoimmune disorders and allergies.

At the LGBTQ+ Christian group I go to, there are some really flamboyant, loud, and excitable extroverts there, who love to sing their hearts out and clap and dance during worship. There are also people who have sensory issues and anxiety exacerbated by loud noise. It cannot be a safe-space for everyone to express themselves freely, if it’s also a safe space for those with anxiety.

In a learning environment, one child with ADHD may need to bounce their leg or fidget with something in order to concentrate, while another autistic child finds that incredibly distracting and makes them anxious.

A small, tight, cosy space that’s reminiscent of a village pub or small cottage might be ideal for making me feel comfortable, sheltered and reducing my anxiety and social exhaustion, but it wouldn’t be very accessible for a wheelchair user or someone with physical mobility issues. I am both of those people.

Nobody is doing anything wrong, nobody is being victimised by another person, there’s no right and wrong in these situations. It’s just that those people have opposing needs that can’t be accommodated in the same space at the same time. And we need to talk about that.

What’s important is that we create different spaces to cater to a multitude of needs, and that we listen to people’s needs. Most importantly we need to look at which groups of people and which needs are often ignored, and which people have very little access to spaces.

I would desperately like to join in the conversation and say that the same principle applies to say that it is impossible for any space to be equally inclusive of male-bodied people who think that "woman" is a feeling that anyone can have, and also of female-bodied people who consider themselves (and all others obviously) to be human beings first and foremost, and that "woman" is simply the type that c50% of human bodies happen to be, and that is a type which comes with specific disadvantages which aren't suffered by the other 50%. It's not that either of these groups are evil or horrible but it is simply impossible to reconcile their needs in the same space, exactly the same as how it is impossible to make a space equally accessible to the other groups with conflicting needs described in the article.

I am not going to try to make this point over on facebook, because I know I would just be told "shut up, transphobe" by someone too closed-minded to even realise how closed their mind is.

I do mostly agree with that, but with the proviso that we shouldn't blindly assume that 'nobody' is doing anything wrong.

Wrongdoers do in fact exist, and some of them will use any excuse.

Wrongdoers do indeed exist.

But having needs that conflict with someone else's needs does not make one automatically a wrong-doer.

Which is why there are supposed to be equalities impact assessments when changes are made. Because any change which makes something better for one group might make it worse for another group.

The failure of so many organisations to bother with an EIA when they did away with single-sex spaces is mind-boggling.

I think what makes me most sad is women are often shouted down for not automatically making way and being welcoming and lovely as women are 'supposed to be' of accepting everyone in female spaces without question, yet women are not 'the enemy's. The common issue for women and trans women is male violence - that's what everyone should be against. The reason trans women can't just have the nice things is not that women are horrid TERFs, it's that we commonly fear male violence, but social media is encouraging people to lambast women instead.

That is very clear piece of writing and it is incredible to me that anyone could read it and not think that yes, some women have different, conflicting needs to transwomen and maybe both need to be accommodated in a way that doesn't negatively impact on one group.

OP maybe you could leave a vague open statement about how that is very true and how you wish that people aggressively pursuing individualism/identity politics would take note and consider that, by listening to each group's needs and with proper funding, everyone can have certain spaces which meet their needs.

That is a very good piece of writing. It makes nonsense of the ridiculous "rights are not a pie" argument. It occurred to me recently when one student body banned clapping and replaced it with "jazz hands" because it was upsetting to some people with sensory disorders. All very well, I thought, but what if you're blind?

However, I also agree with Dods that this whole argument about trans rights is not anything to do with trans people and is being driven entirely by men with an extremely dodgy agenda that involves harming women and girls.

Very well written. And Trans isn’t mentioned once!

It is unfortunate that some needs are prioritised more than others, and also to the detriment of the others. And yes, for me, other is women. And there are always people around to take advantage of the situation for themselves. Sometimes that is maximising opportunity. Sometimes that is wrongdoers exploiting the situation.

Please approach this subject.

Your friend has shared this, presumably agrees with it, and yet, thinks males and females should share women-only spaces but only the males who are not actual men are allowed into women's spaces, bc they're men with gender disphoria which makes them magically not men, and even though that opens the doors to men who we can't tell if they're only saying it etc etc... (Sorry, it's a conversation we've all had on here a million times) that's a price worth paying....

I'd explain to this friend something like

You agree that spaces should be reserved for specific groups of people, and all people's rights need to be balanced, so what about the needs of women who want to participate in life away from males for example, in sports, or enclosed spaces, for reasons of dignity, fairness, safety, etc....

I do think you should try to find a way to approach this using this very good post in your OP.

Very well explained.

All above have been beautifully phrased. It always does, however, and this is what I have been realising very much recently, come down to the underlying question of "what is a woman". That's the terrifying question no one wants to answer.

I have a friend who reminds me of yours a little. Super-woke, but I also sometimes think that actually she is really close to getting it, why some of these things she supports are irrational or just wrong.

She is very big for example on posting things about how some parents of autistic kids are doing things wrong and are offensive. Then at another time she will post things about how we shouldn't judge the situations of others.

In my experience though if I try and connect these dots, it doesn't work, if anything it creates a lot more anger than you'd expect under normal circumstances. What it seems to come down to is that despite claiming a strong preference for positions recommended by "experts" and science, all of her strongly held views come out of her own emotional response.

Someone posted in a group I am in showing a photo of a child with a guide dog at school.

And the first few comments were asking about allergies and phobias other students or teachers may have.

It's funny how the default position is to say no to new innovations except when they benefit straight white men.

Someone posted in a group I am in showing a photo of a child with a guide dog at school. And the first few comments were asking about allergies and phobias other students or teachers may have.

I wonder though, guide dogs for the blind are hardly new, and many straight white men have guide dogs. They've been widely accepted, with generally this sense that people need to suck it up if they are allergic. And I think people were sensible, if another child in a class had a serious allergy, they'd figure out a solution, maybe put one child in another class.

Phobias and allergies now are very catered to, not to say they aren't ever things to think about, but they seem to be high on the list. Emotional support animals demand a lot of room in society now though, even ones that aren't legitimate.

I am seeing a lot of people who seem to have no way to think about proportionality. And favouring of trendy diagnosis as opposed to boring regular ones, like being blind.

I cried recently when a new sensory space was unveiled. It has been beautifully designed to suit low sensory impact with the ability to add in high sensory with lights, music. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a sensory space that gave any thought to the children who need it to be de stimulating.

That piece is excellent.