A query about third spaces

[SometimesLateAtNight]

When people talk about third spaces as a possible solution, do they generally mean that the third space is for anyone who cares to use it, or that the third space is reserved for trans persons only?

I thought I was about as peak trans-ed as I could get but I saw a post today about this issue and suddenly I can’t get past the third space thing seeming.... wrong. I’ll try and attach the post here.

If third spaces are specifically for trans people (of both sexes), how does that provide any dignity for the trans person who has no nefarious intent and truly just wishes to pass and live as the opposite sex? Wouldn’t that be really quite humiliating to have to go, as a passing man or woman, into the ‘trans’ toilets and ‘out’ yourself?

And if the third spaces are for everyone, how is the safety of trans people any better protected than if they used the bathroom which accords with their biological sex? Surely a trans woman who passes poorly or not at all is just as likely to be assaulted in the free for all third space by a man, as in the men’s bathroom?

I can’t stress enough how much (due to past experiences) I want women’s spaces to remain just that, women’s spaces but... I also don’t want genuine trans people to live without the basic dignity and safety im seeking to preserve for myself. How do you reconcile these notions? Or do you not? Is this just an example of TRAs ruining it for everyone?

The fact of the matter is that if I go into a public toilet or changing room and a trans woman appears then I won’t go there again, which means I as a woman have no space to use at all, if I was in hospital or a place where I had no choice to be I would be very distressed and no amount of chanting ‘transwomen are women‘ is going to change that. I feel this way because I have been in situations where strange men have followed me to uninhabited areas and groped and grabbed at my body and exposed themselves to me, and I don’t want it to happen again. I know I am not the only woman to feel this way.

Cross- posted with mermoose - good points!

Imagine if it turns out most people prefer to be in spaces of the same biological sex... for privacy and dignity reasons as well as safety?!

Well according to the tras everyone us happy with it, they In fact prefer it because apparently they mean less bullyingthanks to women being human shields .

So plenty of people happy to use it no? I mean Jameela for starters will be thrilled to share it with them.

I mean they wouldnt be lying to us about the public opinion and willingness to use them would they? We should put some trust in them.

Men's, Women's and Uni-Sex...that should do it. so longs as the single sex provisions were numerous enough for all of the women that would choose to use them, over uni-sex:

By the way the photo above shows a mixed sex provision that is virtually empty, and a Women's toilet ( in France) at which a queue has formed outside.

Men's, Women's and Uni-Sex...that should do it.

@Justhadathought

By the way the photo above shows a mixed sex provision that is virtually empty, and a Women's toilet ( in France) at which a queue has formed outside.

Which tells you all you need to know about how many women want non women in their loos.

Catching up but wanted to respond to this

'The truth is that in many places there isn't room for a third space and also there is a significant cost barrier that can't always be overcome.

These were the arguments against accessible disabled toilets, and were easily overcome in practice. Accessible toilets were up and running in most places in a couple of years, there is a blueprint and experience in having done this.'

Were you involved in the activism for this? My understanding is that it took years of pushing. Getting it up the agenda. Lobbying individual places /councils to get it done etc.
And that provision is still not good enough.
If you have different info or were involved in the whole thing I'd be interested to hear.

Just feels the oh it was easy is a bit dismissive of all the work that went on to get any of this done.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to answer my question - which was ‘what is a third space, exactly’. It really wasn’t ‘can people change sex’ (no), ‘should women share their bathrooms’ (no), ‘should women resolve all of societies ills’ (no), or a query into whether ‘TWAW’ (no).

It seems it well may be that I had a total brain fart when I wondered if it meant ‘trans bathrooms’ for trans people, as a few PPs have been determined to point out repeatedly that the idea is nonsensical and has never been suggested by anyone ever.

To be clear, I’m certainly not coming at it from a trans point of view. My priority is single sex (not gender) spaces for women. But it possible to hold two ideas in ones mind at a time, and I would also - in an ideal world- like to see others catered for. That does not mean at my or at other women’s expense.

Honestly, I’m glad that I don’t feel ambivalent about the struggles of others. I disagree that this is ‘women having to fix everything and men not giving a fuck so SEXISM’. I’d like to live in a society where people don’t trample each other, so I try my best to consider others points of view.

To the PP who suggested I put myself in the shoes of a survivor of sexual assault and see how I feel about single sex spaces, I’m way ahead of you. I’m currently on another thread where a number of us are discussing being raped as children. As I stated up thread, I think you would struggle to find someone who requires a single sex more than I do. PTSD can be a bitch like that. For me that doesn’t mean that if my rights are protected I want others thrown to the wolves. Everyone’s different I guess.

And on the violence in male toilets. Yes it happens.
The other thing that happens in some male toilets is sex.

The dynamic is very different to the ladies.

How much is actual violence and how much is deep discomfort.

It's for men to sort out. Of course they are happy to just shunt out the men they don't want to us, why wouldn't they?

See that wee soft spot you have, OP? The weak spot? The compassion and sympathy for those "being thrown to the wolves"?
Give it time. It'll harden.

See that wee soft spot you have, OP? The weak spot? The compassion and sympathy for those "being thrown to the wolves"? Give it time. It'll harden.

I think this thread is a clear demonstration it has - no one need worry about that. Well, no one able anyway.

OP, I think it was a good question and I agree with you when you say
But it possible to hold two ideas in ones mind at a time, and I would also - in an ideal world- like to see others catered for. That does not mean at my or at other women’s expense.

I think a danger is that this becomes a situation where women are told that, unless we find a solution trans people are happy with, we can't have single sex spaces. But the flip side is that, if someone does come up with a practical way to accommodate trans people, I think it becomes harder for TRAs to paint us as people who simply hate trans people and want them to be miserable.

Also, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I do think that trans-specific single-occupant bathrooms are a good idea, so it wasn't your imagination that some people suggest that. (This is because I think the only way to get to a sustainable social situation re trans people is if they are accepted and accept themselves as trans people).

I take the point of other people though that creating new spaces will be difficult, and it's important that this doesn't encroach on spaces for people with disability. It's a conundrum.

There are even growing issues around fully enclosed mixed sex toilets- voyeurism.

As the tech has got better, hidden cameras become more and more of an issue. South Korean men are ahead of the game on this but it's becoming more common here.

Before we get a women do it to, I'd be surprised if women putting hidden cameras in the gents or the ladies was anything much of s thing at all. Voyeurism offences are another one where it is massively predominantly a male crime, and not an uncommon one at all.

I agree with you OP that it is important to keep people's genuine struggles in mind - all people.
Some problems don't have a one-size-fits-all solution.

I am really not convinced that violence to transwomen in male toilets is an issue in most settings. In fact I would say that violence in male toilets isn't really a common thing in many settings where I live - most toilets are not dangerous.

The problem of danger seems to be related especially to tiolets in certain settings and often those places could be dangerous for a variety of people who could be seen as targets. A lot of them are places that involve drugs or alcohol.

Maybe the real issue is making regular male and female toilets in those settings safer.

is if they are accepted and accept themselves as trans people).

What does that really mean though? It means being accepted as their biological sex really. In which case why can’t they use the facilities of their biological sex?

is if they are accepted and accept themselves as trans people).

What does that really mean though? It means being accepted as their biological sex really. In which case why can’t they use the facilities of their biological sex?

It's a good point. But while I don't believe that trans people are the opposite sex, I do believe that gender dysphoria is real. If people like Blanchard are right and, for some people, medical transition is the best route to easing dysphoria, then I think we need to accommodate people who choose that route. That would include people who no longer look like their biological sex.

I think this thread is a clear demonstration it has - no one need worry about that. Well, no one able anyway

We do hear you......and it is not that we aren't aware of the need for disabled toilets, it is that this particular issue is one of ^male/female/unisex provisions/'third'd spaces.

No matter how anyone identifies, if they are disabled they should have appropriate provision.

third spaces

The problem of danger seems to be related especially to tiolets in certain settings and often those places could be dangerous for a variety of people who could be seen as targets. A lot of them are places that involve drugs or alcohol

The night time economy and toilet provision in such circumstances, is a different kettle of fish to that of providing full cubicle but unisex toilets in a day time office environment.

It is sexism, OP.

I am standing up for this, and spending the hours writing letters and arguing here for the females who stand to lose any space at all to give males more choice.

I see plenty of females agonising over those males and solutions for those males.

I see very few females off this site giving or being allowed to give a second thought to what losing single sex spaces will do to females, and most importantly I see no activist male born people caring about those females, what will happen to those females or seeing their exclusion as a problem .

I'm afraid this has dramatically reduced my interest in their agenda and their issues need to be theirs to solve. I've got enough to do as a female trying to protect the females that neither they, nor mermaids, nor Stonewall, nor any other very well funded very loud groups with big political influence care about. We may may just have got the government to notice that female people's needs might matter too - and you can see the rage everywhere from the TRA lobby about this.

Sexism is in every single part of this.

My understanding is that it took years of pushing. Getting it up the agenda. Lobbying individual places /councils to get it done etc.

I was involved years ago in building work providing some of it. It took decades to get it into law and LA regulations: this is what happens when the lobby group involved isn't a powerful one. However once it was in law and the process was begun, it moved quickly and expectations were shifted from we can't/there's no space/it's too hard/ it's too expensive to realising that it had to be got on with and funding grants were there to help.

No it's not yet perfect, and disabled people are much, much, much lower priority and lower profile and still much less fashionable a cause, they don't wield the power or marketing or ability for political capture that this lobby does. It has further to go. But a lot happened very quickly once it was in law and LA agency teams began to enforce it.

The accessible toilet in our office is used exclusively by men when they want a shit.

It's unfortunate as the smell permeates out to the lift area where the guests come in

I do think that men tend to help themselves to things that aren't necessarily for them more than women tbh which is another issue.

What does that really mean though? It means being accepted as their biological sex really. In which case why can’t they use the facilities of their biological sex?

Because of the fear of male violence. Find the petition I mentioned upthread if you want the POV of some TW who do use the facilities of their sex but who see the need for third spaces.

No it's not yet perfect, and disabled people are much, much, much lower priority and lower profile and still much less fashionable a cause, they don't wield the power or marketing or ability for political capture that this lobby does.

The main reason is that people simply don't like seeing visibly disabled people out and about. Want to become invisible ? Sit in a wheelchair.

It has further to go. But a lot happened very quickly once it was in law and LA agency teams began to enforce it.

As with buses, all disabled people can see is their hard won concessions being pissed away in an instant.

Although at least ShinyFootball s workplace are refreshingly honest, and have repurposed the accessible toilets, since the actual provision for the less able in the workplace hasn't advanced much in the past 25 years. Although what's the point of providing accessible toilets, if a person can't get a bus to work in the first place ?