Labour have committed to single sex spaces

[flumpetto]

Excluding trans

This is a step in the right direction at long last....

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Just reminding posters on here that Butterfly earlier commented : "...I do think that there are undercurrents amongst some strains of gc feminism that can skew heavily authoritarian and unsavoury unless watched and carefully regulated, and there have unfortunately been some well documented incidents of this happening.... "

Not sure that I'd "innocently" pop onto a trans focussed internet site and make a similar comment . When someone shows you who they are and all that, it's worth believing them

Yes, the unless watched and carefully regulated is so sinister and shows exactly what Butterfly really thinks.

Women, their thoughts, words and deeds are to be policed and regulated by men, plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

Yes. And it's not up to feminists to obtain or create those third spaces.

What's your suggestion, Butterfly?

You don't want third spaces because it 'outs' people; you agree women's single sex spaces mustn't be watered down.

Where does that leave us?

@ArabellaScott

Sorry, Butterfly, I couldn't help it. The scansion was too perfect to resist.

Brilliant!

God, I sure am typing Paragraphs today.

Look, I'm really sorry if I'm coming across as an entitled ass by jumping into a thread talking about people's fears and trying to convince you they aren't real. I don't think I can not give this impression, as the moment one is open about their trans credentials, there's literally nothing they can say or do to avert the inevitable sledgehammer of stereotype threat. This is why I'm not out in my general personal or indeed online life. Funnily enough, nobody ever has a problem until I say I'm trans, and then suddenly wham Male Entitlement, Shouting Down Women's Voices, the whole tired old cocktail comes out. Boohoohoo poor fragile genderfeels.

Anyway, your concerns are real, and they're numerous, and they're worthy, and need to be answered with real, helpful policy. Policy that, through various quirks of fate, also directly benefits a small number of people like me - but even if it didn't, the principle still stands.

It's clear that despite the large number of posters in this place who have privately agreed with me, attempting to have public discussions that match the content of private ones is just opening me up to abuse from people who clearly don't want to address them.

I didn't expect anything different, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the people who have positively engaged.

@ArabellaScott

Stereotyped gender conformance behaviours are problematic reinforcements of patriarchal oppression imposed on women to silence and control them, apart from when trans women defy gatekeeping and don't exhibit them, at which point they're exhibiting inherent markers of maleness that show they aren't 'really' trans.

Parklife.

Yeah, but word salad notwithstanding, this is another logic fail. Women are oppressed by gender and the societal expectations placed on us. If a man says he is a woman and then doesn't exhibit stereotypical feminine behaviours as demanded and rewarded by the rules of gender, Butterfly says that means they are defying gatekeeping, and that those men are then judged as not trans enough.

That presupposes that there is consensus on "true trans", that people agree that certain feminine behaviours have to be displayed to qualify, and that in turn is gatekeeping.

In actual fact most people don't believe humans can change sex, are sympathetic to very gender non-conforming males who have a full surgical transition and assume that having put in a certain amount of "effort" means the individual is "genuine" and shouldn't be bullied. A man who doesn't look any different to any other man, but who demands to be recognised as a woman, isn't something many people have a mental reference for. It's quite a new phenomenon. Ironically that contingent of men are likely to make life worse for people like Butterfly.

regressive agendas, interesting @ButterflyHatched, the gender ideology agenda is the most regressive, homophobic, misogynist, sexist, repressive and downright dangerous ideology, but I doubt that's what you were referencing in your latest post.

Look, I'm really sorry if I'm coming across as an entitled ass by jumping into a thread talking about people's fears and trying to convince you they aren't real.

Entitled ass isn't all you are coming across as.

Convince us our fears aren't real patronisation overload. Our fears are real and they are well evidenced and documented, so stop with the we can all hold hands and skip off into the sunlit uplands crap.

It's clear that despite the large number of posters in this place who have privately agreed with me, attempting to have public discussions that match the content of private ones is just opening me up to abuse from people who clearly don't want to address them.

I am increasingly weary of people who style disagreement as abuse.

Ditto for people who blame their misreadings, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings on others.

@ButterflyHatched I didn’t see anyone stereotype you on posts, just people politely engaging.
However for me my main issue is that - if you or others as TW want to basically ‘encroach’ on women’s spaces - then it’s up to you (TW) to prove that there is no harm done and up to you (TW) to come up with solutions.

It’s not up to me. I have enough on my plate as a woman!

I thought this thread was about women's rights to safe spaces. That’s all 34 million of us in the uk.

How has it become all about the feelings of one individual on this thread who is not a biological woman? Why do our human rights to safely and privacy get taken away because of one ( or a hundred male people’s feelings)?

Absolutely.

So, another attempt at thought termination.

Either: you can always tell, I have unmistakeable physical male attributes that make women inherently uncomfortable and which people were always secretly cowering in fear from, and everyone I've ever met and interacted with including people who have by default included me in explicitly trans-hostile private spaces while sharing their horrendous jokes and memes in good confidence has just been playing along;

So, now you tell us that you might have be PAIS, which may or may not have influenced your testosterone developmental path. And to some degree, it may well have. I doubt that you can accurately deny that there will be aspects of your physiology that will indicate your sex.

However, you use of language in this paragraph above really does show your intention on this board and your feelings towards women who are stating their boundaries clearly, which you do not like to hear.

secretly cowering in fear - again, great show of respect for women who have stated to you that there are women who do fear males, no matter how much that male believes they 'pass', being in the space they need to remain single sex, not single gender.

explicitly trans-hostile private spaces - do you mean, female single sex spaces? I assume you are. And you simply cannot see that this has been the way that you have communicated in most of your posts on MN. Your own prejudice has been very clear about this discussion board from the start.

These phrases are incredibly offensive, just like the 'infertile women' phrase.

or you can't always tell, I'm passing invisibly and thus a duplicitous infiltrator who is harming women by making them feel unsafe ?retroactively? if I later out myself.

Some women will simply not be able to or be interested in identifying that you are male. There are women who this will not be a high priority and will probably filter it out. Sometimes contact is so brief that it is a fleeting sensation that may or may not be articulated in thought. No one has said anything differently.

However, it is excellent to see you have finally picked up the point that there will be women who will still be harmed if they found out that what they believed was a single sex safe space that they relied on, was not what they believed, or had been led to believe, it to be.

Which reality is it? These can't exist simultaneously

really? I guess that is what happens when you are using the 'all or nothing' approach, it leaves you absolutely no where to go.

That you cannot believe or understand that:

a) the majority of women will most likely be able to identify a male in their presence, despite that male's presentation. That even someone who had a partial insensitivity to testosterone will have the skeletal structure of a male (pelvis) amongst other things.

b) that traumatised women, or women with any reason to need single sex spaces to remain that way, (ie. single sex not single gender) will be harmed by a male's access to spaces those women. Yes, retrospective realisation as well.

can exist simultaneously is not our issue to resolve. At all.

And your not believing these things can exist simultaneously, does not make that they do, untrue.

You don't want third spaces because it 'outs' people; you agree women's single sex spaces mustn't be watered down.

Third spaces don't "out" people. There are a myriad of reasons why people might want individual cubicles/toilets etc. These can always be signalled as unisex.

E.g I attended a festival which had individual portaloos for anyone and sex-based larger facilities. I assume that anyone uncomfortable using the sex-based facilities could use the individual ones. No "outing" required at all.

And it's quite incredible how many men claim they fully pass as women. Are these the same people who think they are being complimented when their age is guessed at 45 and not 50? 5 years is a minimum amount to "guess" under to avoid embarrassment all round.

Third spaces will not work for these people. It's ludicrous to expect trans people who've never spent a moment of their adult lives living in their originally assigned gender roles to casually out themselves every time they need a pee; and it's evidently not going to happen anyway short of forcing everyone to carry toilet passports.

A third unisex/mixed spaces and services absolutely would work alongside single sex only spaces and services all those women who state they have no problem sharing with TW will be in there with you so no casually outing at all.

As for 'assigned gender roles' ditch the gender roles (which is what GC feminists want) and segregate simply and cleanly on the basis of sex and nothing else, that would be progressive and inclusive.

[quote NCBlossom]@ButterflyHatched I didn’t see anyone stereotype you on posts, just people politely engaging.
However for me my main issue is that - if you or others as TW want to basically ‘encroach’ on women’s spaces - then it’s up to you (TW) to prove that there is no harm done and up to you (TW) to come up with solutions.

It’s not up to me. I have enough on my plate as a woman![/quote]
I'd rephrase: if you still want to encroach on women's spaces even after they've demonstrated there are harms, and you're not going to accept their no - be honest about it.

@IM0GEN

I thought this thread was about women's rights to safe spaces. That’s all 34 million of us in the uk.

How has it become all about the feelings of one individual on this thread who is not a biological woman? Why do our human rights to safely and privacy get taken away because of one ( or a hundred male people’s feelings)?

Women have a right to safe spaces that are a social convention that contributes to our safeguarding and that of children.

Women's safe spaces are not to be challenged on the basis of an immersive fiction that others assert as their reality and one they legally seek to impose upon others.

I note the approval for the good girls who have privately agreed with you.

You're expecting female people to redefine themselves and reprogramme themselves for male benefit. Not theirs. Them even explaining their problems - and their anger at the constant talking over, shouting down, handwaving away, minimising, denying, insulting and instructions to die in a grease fire/ be forced to suck a male person's genitals - is framed by you as just being unhelpful and unco operative. To the better interests of males.

This is all about enforcing females to put male people first.

No. My having been born with a vagina does not make me everyone's mum. And this is what is being missed: it's so, so easy to handwave away the realities of sex when you are of the sex that is not oppressed by it . No one here gets to identify out of their subordinate position. Which sex is busy ordering the other to reinvent themselves to better convenience, and which sex is being scolded and oppressed for saying 'no'?

The answer is no. No. No, females cannot just absorb new and fun male centred progressive thinking on sex because female issues, which never cross male radar matter . The exclusion of female people matters. The rape of female prisoners in the pursuit of better happiness and wellbeing of male prisoners is obscene. That females are currently staying out of refuges because male people insist that there can be no remaining provisions that they have not got access to is appalling in its lack of inclusiveness.

Why are female needs not to be met? Because it's too distressing to male people to have recognised that biologically female people exist as a separate group that identity cannot cross.

Have third spaces. Have all the additional spaces. Our language has been taken, our legal rights are constantly under threat, we're 'menstruators' and 'cervix havers' and 'cis scum'. Whatever. Just permit female only to remain in order to allow female people access to resources too. Please. Have a little compassion in permitting others some crumbs. I had absolutely no problem at all until I saw how this political agenda treated females. And that was what switched me from a whole lot of sympathy to a strong no.

Anyway, your concerns are real, and they're numerous, and they're worthy, and need to be answered with real, helpful policy. Policy that, through various quirks of fate, also directly benefits a small number of people like me - but even if it didn't, the principle still stands.

Except when you start posting phrases like 'secretly cowering in fear' and 'explicitly trans-hostile private spaces' which continues to show your intent.

It's clear that despite the large number of posters in this place who have privately agreed with me, attempting to have public discussions that match the content of private ones is just opening me up to abuse from people who clearly don't want to address them.

I am glad that you have so many posters in touch with you, giving you support.

However, please clarify who is abusing you on these boards? Please report any posts you view as abusive, MN moderation policy is very very harsh to any regular posters who cross the guidelines.

Or is robust and straight forward disagreement abuse?

I'd rephrase: if you still want to encroach on women's spaces even after they've demonstrated there are harms, and you're not going to accept their no - be honest about it.

yes please!

Even a moment's consideration will, however, show that this subject is a great deal more complex than credit is being given here; while an extremely small percentage (extrapolating GIDS admissions from the 2000 to 2015 period gives a very rough, optimistic estimate of 750 people spread across a range of ages, with varying degrees of visibility) of trans people with degrees of pubertal suppression have entered society so far, a new and vastly more numerous generation of young people is starting to follow, often starting at an even younger age, sometimes having had puberty entirely suppressed.

750? Really? Or are you actually arguing for a two factor 'trans' legislation. One for those males receiving puberty blockers very early so they might have 'passing' ability and then the approximately 250K that we are told would be the portion of 'trans' males under the current umbrella?

Is that the point you are trying to state here?

Double-Standards:

A transwoman's inner feelings are real and must be accepted.

A woman's inner feelings (of being scared) are not real and must be 'educated.'

They've never experienced male adulthood and have been experiencing living under the patriarchy while percieved and treated as female from ages six and even younger.

I am quite sure I can find studies that will show the degree that males are socialised as males from birth.

However, I would be quite interested in a study that indicated just how a male who from the age of 6 who may have been treated as a female, while understanding that they are forever a male, would not take on male socialisation. Even sub-consciously.

I'd rephrase: if you still want to encroach on women's spaces even after they've demonstrated there are harms, and you're not going to accept their no - be honest about it.

Absolutely.

All I hear is I've decided I'm a woman, I've chosen that path, you women have to accept and validate my choice because I say so, you have to believe I am a woman because I say so, you have to stop objecting to me being in your single sex spaces because I say so, you have to be welcoming and submissive because I say so, you have to just put up and shut up about your fear, discomfort, erosion of privacy and safety, because I say so and any woman who actually can't use those spaces and services because of me and others like me - tough

While I appreciate cleaving to one's principles and repeating pithy axioms while celebrating your apparently flawless transdar is a great way to shut down attempts to have serious and necessary conversations about experienced realities.

Here is that language again.

pithy axioms - is this a reference to women saying that single sex spaces need to remain single sex and not become mixed sex? Are they just pithy axioms?

flawless transdar. I am not sure how much you can deny that the majority of trans people do not actually pass as well as they say. Why would any person expect females to make allowances for a subset of transitioned males to access their safe spaces when it must then be rolled out to all transitioned males. Perhaps you need to actually work out the logic in what you are trying to convince people should be allowed.

And of course, these phrases are being used, hypocritically, to shut down attempts to have serious and necessary conversations about experienced realities.

Another note on third spaces: they have a use and appeal beyond the trans/NB application.

As a mother with a boy child now past the age allowed in women's changing rooms, I am always grateful for swimming pools with mixed/family changing.

As someone who isn't too fussed who is in the next cubicle, I'd gladly swap to the unisex toilet queue if it was shorter.

Prisons and DV/rape services - well, there's such a degree of intimacy involved here that I think once you're through the door you're 'outing' all sorts of everything anyway. (Aside from that, these two are the areas where women have the most to lose and i absolutely can't accept that any should be collateral damage to avoid outing trans women.)

One of my local swimming pools offers a specific trans/nb session. I was delighted to notice it as a booking option, and I know a friend was delighted to avail themselves of it.

As a relatively femme lesbian I have some (different, but perhaps not so different) experience of passing, coming out freely, coming out under pressure. I get that many trans people, especially those who we would have previously thought of as "transsexual", would not want to be outed all the time and that there is considerable vulnerability in some circumstances. I don't think that can trump everything, though. I think it's why we need to continue to fight against actual transphobia, like homophobia, until being out as trans or lesbian/gay is no different from being left handed.