Which spaces do non-binary people use?

[BewaretheIckabog]

I’m sure this will have been covered before but ...

GC people are happy to support a campaign for third spaces. I know it’s not always practical, cost-effective etc but in principle single-sex spaces for men and women and third spaces would be good. When it comes to toilets in small restaurants, cafes etc full enclosed unisex would work as they do for disabled.

It seems the TRA lobby are more interested in opening up single-sex to people by gender identity. Third spaces would not be inclusive and would be othering.

As the alphabet+ is so inclusive and caring surely they should be campaigning for third spaces to stand with non-binary people. Trans women and TRAs would then be able to us those spaces without outing themselves , they would be boldly standing up (to pee) and showing solidarity with NBs.

I know toilets and changing rooms are a small part of the single-sex spaces but if Jameela Jamal, Emma Watson, the TRAs, all gender fluid, NBs, trans people and all those who support mixed sex spaces or aren’t bothered by the genitals of those peeing next to them use those spaces there will be no problem.

I'll answer this to the best of my ability from the TRA perspective.

The underlying principle should be safety and dignity for all. This is not a numbers game; the needs of a small minority such as the disabled, non binary or transgender should not be disregarded in the interests of the larger group.

To this end, we need to rethink spaces like toilets and changing rooms to replace sex segregation with individual privacy. In Germany, for example, these facilities are often based around individual cubicles (with larger ones for families) and this is the model we should be working towards.

Things do, admittedly, become a lot more difficult when we are talking about things like hospital wards and prisons. I don't have all the answers here, but as a trans woman I think the ideal would be to be separated from both men and other women wherever possible. This protects my dignity as a woman while acknowledging the reality of biology; women who are not transgender should not have to share intimate spaces with us because of the way we appear. Sadly, I can't expect them to see the female mind and not the "male" body.

These arrangements would, I think, also be ideal for non binary people, though I cannot speak for them directly.

Hope this helps a bit.

to replace sex segregation with individual privacy.
Except I value the company of others of my sex, in changing rooms and shared saunas, for example. Where the full range of female bodies is an important experience for other females. From school changing rooms, to pool changing areas, as I have got older, the experience of seeing other females happy with their bodies, however old they are, and however their bodies have changed. There is nothing for older women to be ashamed of, and like the current openness around prosthetic limbs etc, 'individual privacy' is not always a good thing. Yes, a 'third space', the privacy for those who want it, but don't impose it on the rest of us.

the needs of a small minority such as the disabled, non binary or transgender should not be disregarded in the interests of the larger group.

But you're quite happy for them to be able to dictate to 99% of the rest of the population, that they must use any facilities in complete isolation.

Women together must be stopped at all costs, it would appear.

People who say they are non-binary, just as people who say they are trans, all come from one of the two sexes. Just like everyone else.

We segregate by sex, not by how someone thinks, or how they think they think, or because they don't think they think like any other male or female.

I can't expect them to see the female mind and not the "male" body.

A female brain is a brain in a female body.

Single sex spaces are there because female bodies are different from male bodies, not because female brains are different from male brains.

I wish I could "like" your post 10 times over, Old Crone.

To this end, we need to rethink spaces like toilets and changing rooms to replace sex segregation with individual privacy. In Germany, for example, these facilities are often based around individual cubicles (with larger ones for families) and this is the model we should be working towards

I agree re individual privacy. I have no desire to see other people , men or women , naked. I hate communal changing rooms.

There is not the money, space or inclination to have 3rd spaces or convert everything to single enclosed cubicles.

also. TRAs are not fighting for this. They are fighting for access to single sex spaces, and currently getting the them.

Female facilities are made 'all gender'. Men's seem to stay for men.

Non binary. If sex is irrelevant and gender is all then they need a 3rd space. Again, not being fought for.

Male bodied people go in male spaces. Female bodied people go in female spaces. Simple.

The question was which spaces do non-binary women use.
The question was not which spaces would trans women want.

Last year I used some of these new loos in an art gallery which were for men and women. Oh the smell. Barely open a few months and cleaned regularly and they reaked of male pee. I suspect there are many women who don't want their space scent marked by the male.

Where the full range of female bodies is an important experience for other females.

I think this is so overlooked and so important.

The female body is so sexualise in our culture and the "acceptable" body type is always tight, perky and young. It's important for women to see other women. I'm not talking about ogling strangers - but your friends, mothers, sisters. Especially younger women. My mother always had no shame of her body and we would always change in the communal area. It's important for a young girl to see that a woman's body is just a body. It comes in all shapes, it's nothing to be ashamed off.

We're also social animals. I don't like the idea of being locked away. Small cubiclas are also more dirty and more cramped and make life harder for mums with kids. The queues are also longer.

The thing I don't like is trans is such a small % of the population. In a town like mine you could end up changing everything to suit and tiny minority. Make life worse, more difficult and more uncomfortable for everyone else - and never get a trans person through the door.
And all this nonsense about "it others people" they are other. They need to accept that. Its is not the normal (as in part of the majority) to present as the oppersite sex to your biological one. Disabled people are othered every day - they don't complain, they accept they are other, even though they are a bigger majority than trans.

IMO ‘non-binary’ is just words, often it’s today’s goth and presumably they’ll grow out of it. Alternatively it’s just words that describe someone who isn’t into the current male or female stereotypes in the oversexualised world that teens have the misfortune to be growing up in (and I get why they want to avoid it) or who is escaping puberty / struggling with their sexuality. It can be someone who is too introspective or lonely finding an online community of friends. It can be someone who loves the attention and thinks it’s cool.
If it’s a grown up it’s words describing someone stuck in childhood or with some mental distress (possibly escaping a trauma) or a narcissist.
I have sympathy, but none of the above makes any difference to their sex so they should just use the correct facilities for their sex, like everyone else. Their issues don’t trump everyone else’s rights.

Single sex spaces aren't just physical spaces though are they? They're also a metaphor - for example a list of inspirational women just have women on it. If people who identify as non binary are on it they should be female. Non binary people are still either one sex or the other.

female brain is a brain in a female

"Single sex spaces are there because female bodies are different from male bodies, not because female brains are different from male brains"

This every single time!

Well they are either going to need a urinal or a sanitary bin so they will just have to use te one that serves their needs biologically.

What they shouldn't do is hijack the disabled toilets as there aren't enough of them and they are fir physical/neuro disabilities not for people who don't want to admit they have a sex.

I agree re individual privacy. I have no desire to see other people , men or women , naked. I hate communal changing rooms.

I agree.

What they shouldn't do is hijack the disabled toilets as there aren't enough of them and they are fir physical/neuro disabilities not for people who don't want to admit they have a sex.

This. And this is also what we are at risk of losing. A hierarchy has been formed, actual vulnerabilities are being ignored. Disabled toilets are also usually already sharing the baby changing facilities and is mixed sex so the 'Male scent' is already present.

I wish we could prioritise real, tangible disabilities above claims of feelings.

A poll from non-binary people would be useful to answer this question. I'd be interested to find out where the want to go, toilets according to their sex or according to how they feel and does it change?

I think unisex facilities are useful for many people, including those who are caring for opposite sex children and people who aren’t bothered about using single sex facilities.

I have worked in many offices that are too small to have single sex loos and cleanliness was never a problem.

The problem is that rainbow stickers and new toilet door signs are cheaper than actual new properly designed unisex toilets.

There is not the money, space or inclination to have 3rd spaces or convert everything to single enclosed cubicles

I don't buy this. It's the kind of argument that used to be made about the hassle of putting in wheelchair ramps and providing documents in Braille before equality legislation and social pressure toward inclusion made these steps necessary in most cases (i.e. those cases where this was really just an excuse rather than the actual truth).

The real reason third spaces aren't a popular solution is because the only people who are asking for them are female-bodied people (including many non-binary ones, IME), who typically don't have the loudest voices in matters such as these.

You can bet your life if the TRA lobby demanded third spaces, the issues of space and money would pale into insignificance because "it's just the right thing to do".

It seems obvious that some people find it difficult to make an obvious declaration of sex by choosing a toilet; and worry about being challenged because their appearance is gnc.

It doesn’t have to be logical.

For different reasons, both mixed sex and single sex provision can be prohibitive for some groups of people.

I agree longines

Longines - but the needs you list - disabilities, are real, physical needs beyond the individual’s control. That’s why we have disabled loos. ‘Third space’ loos - great if there is space & money, but these are a luxury imo, catering to a tiny number of people who just don’t want to use the loo for their sex (even though they are entirely capable). If extra loos are to be built far more people would benefit from creating proper baby change/family loos and decent dedicated disabled loos. But of course most of those people would just be mothers and disabled people, so less important than a teeny number of people role playing as the other / no sex.

What I mean is that yes, have another unisex loo - but it doesn’t have to be designed specially for ‘non binary’ people.

Just to add, the worst thing people can do for trans inclusion is to shoe-horn it into the existing sex-segregated facilities, as that makes no sense and causes all sorts of unpalatable outcomes (as we know).

It's all very well saying no-one has the money to accommodate trans people and the thousands of different genders that people self-identify as, but if people believe that gender is a thing and want to accommodate everyone's self-identified gender, they need to put their money where their mouths are and accommodate all the genders people are identifying as, not just the ones coming from the people with the loudest voices and which conveniently happen to correspond with the existing sex-segregated structure that we have and seemingly require minimal effort to deal with (aside from that minor issue of biological women kicking up a fuss, of course).

Either gender identity is a thing, in which case, sex-segregated facilities are no longer fit for purpose and we should move to a more individualised model as Renata suggests, or gender identity is only a thing where it conveniently aligns with 'male' and 'female'. If the latter is true, then that begs the question: why are some trans people believed when they assert their gender identity and others aren't?

The easiest and cheapest option is to make all male facilities unisex and keep female and disabled facilities for the people they were intended for. It would also potentially have the advantage of making men behave better towards people who don't conform to a traditional male stereotype - which at the end of the day is what trans people say is the problem of using male facilities.