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

I don't even think it's just these women who should expect a right to a female space. I happen to have suffered sexual abuse, as have a huge number of women - but even if I hadn't, I just want to be able to relax in a female toilet, changing room, hospital ward etc. and know it's female-only.

Of course some males might "pass", of course some males might just march in. That doesn't mean the concept isn't worth preserving. Just like we don't get rid of burglary laws just because someone might be able to either break in or get in under false pretences.

The point is that it should be an accepted, respected division that is enforced by law. So if someone is male they can be asked to leave and if they don't it can be enforced - and that in itself would mean most males wouldn't try - as opposed to now where increasingly any males know there's nothing anyone can do if they want to say they're a woman, go in, expose themselves and do whatever they like.

I want proper female-only spaces not just because I don't want to deal with that happening, but also because if there are males in there - even well-behaved, kind, lovely feminine males - it's STILL about centring males, being wary of males and not being able to relax. Even just talking about female biological issues, which women do when with other women, is seen as exclusive and hurtful.

A male can never, ever know, by definition, what it's like to be a woman and have a space where the constant vigilance falls away and you are in the company of other women and can share that – our femaleness. I'm not talking about girlieness, nail polish and high heels, but being female.

And yes it must be hard if that males TW sad and feel left out. But you know what, a shedload of women feel sad and upset because of what they're left out of and excluded from, like hey maybe equal pay, or inheriting titles, or a fair hearing in a rape trial, or safety on the street, and on and on. Lots of people feel sad because their body isn't what they wish it was – whether that's because you have a disability or injury, or just wish you were better looking. Or if you're infertile and wish you weren't. Or if you have anorexia.

A male who "feels female" and wishes to be female should not be seen as some super-special case that means other people's safety can go to hell. Yes, there should be help and support available and no one should be discriminated against for that reason, but nor should their feelings matter more than others' reality and safety.

Yep. It seems 'gender' is clearly something that really matters a lot to some people. That's fine, whatever floats your boat, it's not my circus, etc.

But even if lots of people fervently believe in 'gender' as a real thing, it doesn't and can't replace or supercede sex.

Sex matters. Indisputably and always. Humans will always be a dimorphic species, there's just no changing or getting round this.

I'm not all that interested in discussing which of my rights or how much of many of my rights I am willing to concede. The answer is none. No amount of theory or discussion, tech or medecine, will ever change my sex - or anyone else's.

It doesn't matter if some people are really good at passing. It doesn't matter if many women are happy to use mixed sex spaces.

It is still not okay for women to be excluded from participation in public life to 'help out' some males.

Women are entitled to equal consideration and access, we matter just as much as males do. Our concerns are as important, in law and morally.

@ArabellaScott

Yep. It seems 'gender' is clearly something that really matters a lot to some people. That's fine, whatever floats your boat, it's not my circus, etc.

But even if lots of people fervently believe in 'gender' as a real thing, it doesn't and can't replace or supercede sex.

Sex matters. Indisputably and always. Humans will always be a dimorphic species, there's just no changing or getting round this.

I'm not all that interested in discussing which of my rights or how much of many of my rights I am willing to concede. The answer is none. No amount of theory or discussion, tech or medecine, will ever change my sex - or anyone else's.

It doesn't matter if some people are really good at passing. It doesn't matter if many women are happy to use mixed sex spaces.

It is still not okay for women to be excluded from participation in public life to 'help out' some males.

Women are entitled to equal consideration and access, we matter just as much as males do. Our concerns are as important, in law and morally.

That's the end and the all of it.

You'll notice I've never used that word here; I'm aware people hate it and don't identify with it

It's probably best not to use a misogynistic slur when talking to a group of mostly women, so that's good, plus MN does recognise it as such and will delete it.

@ArabellaScott completely wholeheartedly agree.

It is the ‘backfooted’ nature of the argument that I find worrying. Women having to constantly defend just being a woman, being able to ‘be’ a woman, have some spaces for women, a fair playing ground in sport and work, and being called a women.

That is ‘not much to ask’ - it’s actually just the very least women should have as things are still in no way equal to men.

I was once in an abusive relationship and a counselor told me that part of the pattern was always having to justify myself or be on the back foot. My Ex was constantly making out that there was something wrong with that I’d done and I was cornered having to explain. That it was ‘dreadful for him’ and he had ‘mental health problems’ because of things I supposedly did or didn’t do. Really classic abusive behaviour.

Really reminds me of now. So I really agree. I refuse to get into any arguments about this. TW have to defend their corner and come up with their own solutions that do not tread into woman’s territory, or woman’s rights to just be women, and have a small bit of protected space and a small bit of level playing fields such as sport. There is no middle ground here. We have so little ground as it is!

It goes both ways, right?

It's not much to ask to have toilets divided by gender.

It's not much to ask to have toilets divided by sex.

If you actually look into the reasons for dividing toilets, though, they basically support either dividing them by sex, or possibly occasionally having undivided toilets or limited division. There just isn't much reason to divide toilets on the basis of gender, and more than you'd divide flatware on the basis of gender.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

I'm here to be educated,

I can't see that you've withdrawn your interpretation of Nazis as gender critical. For me, this substantially undercuts your claim.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions: For avoidance of doubt, and for the sake of brevity:

If you don't think Nazis are critical of what they refer to as 'gender ideology' then I really don't think there's any point in arguing the toss, here.

For god's sake: I don't think that GC feminists are Nazis. This isn't what I'm saying; I'm not a shrieking twitterite godwinning everyone who disagrees with them. You're clearly not a Nazi. It's one of the most ludicrously overused terms in modern discourse - or at least, it was in a pre-Trump world.

I really don't want to get mired on this one, and it's been worded far more eloquently elsewhere by brilliant people like Judith Butler. This is an inherently inflammatory topic and I don't think it's my place, nor worth anyone's time, to expand.

If you really, really want to have a conversation on the finer points of definition then I'll indulge - but I can't see how it isn't going to be profoundly unconstructive.

@ArabellaScott

Yep. It seems 'gender' is clearly something that really matters a lot to some people. That's fine, whatever floats your boat, it's not my circus, etc.

But even if lots of people fervently believe in 'gender' as a real thing, it doesn't and can't replace or supercede sex.

Sex matters. Indisputably and always. Humans will always be a dimorphic species, there's just no changing or getting round this.

I'm not all that interested in discussing which of my rights or how much of many of my rights I am willing to concede. The answer is none. No amount of theory or discussion, tech or medecine, will ever change my sex - or anyone else's.

It doesn't matter if some people are really good at passing. It doesn't matter if many women are happy to use mixed sex spaces.

It is still not okay for women to be excluded from participation in public life to 'help out' some males.

Women are entitled to equal consideration and access, we matter just as much as males do. Our concerns are as important, in law and morally.

This. No matter how you frame it, women matter as much as men. That also means women need to have their needs met, not told to be kind, get over it or go with the times. If men can get what they want, so can women.

If you really, really want to have a conversation on the finer points of definition then I'll indulge - but I can't see how it isn't going to be profoundly unconstructive.

No I really don't want to have a conversation on the finer points of definition, the only definition that matters is one based on sex which is immutable and unchangeable.

What I would really like is to hear your proposals Butterfly on what happens to the women who cannot or will not be able to access single sex spaces and services if said services include males, irrespective of how that male presents or whether or not that male thinks he passes as a woman? You've said no to third spaces which can and will be used by those women whose have no reservations about sharing with males so would not be 'outing' for transwomen, so what is your solution?

Effectively, you are insisting that women have to accede to your demands to avoid 'outing' you, Butterfly.

No, thank you.

On the subject of genital inspections and toilet passports which you referenced earlier in the thread, why would these be necessary?

Can we not expect you to be decent and honest enough not to intrude into spaces that are not yours to enter, where you are not welcome and where your presence bars those from those spaces for whom they were designed and are necessary?

Women matter, their needs matter, their wants and wishes matter, we were not put on this earth to be used as validation tools, human shields or collateral damage even though that seems to be the prevailing mindset at the moment.

I am deeply, deeply afraid of and horrified by the rising current of axiomatic, authoritarian thinking within 4th wave feminism

What 'authoritarian thinking' are your referring to @ButterflyHatched? And are we all '4th wave' feminists? I'm not even sure what that means as I haven't studied feminist theory.

Is it things like 'people can't change sex' that you object to? This isn't authoritarian so much as a scientific fact. Or do you see other authoritarian tendencies in feminists? If so, what?

NellWilsonsWhiteHair said this earlier:

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.

I agree with this. What do you think? Is this a logical goal to aim for? Total acceptance of trans people as trans people. Nobody has to pretend to believe that anyone has changed sex, but you could be accepted as a male person who prefers to present in a way which is more stereotypically associated with women.

Butterfly, why are you ignoring all the questions asked of you? Do you not want to answer or do you not have an answer?

If you don't think Nazis are critical of what they refer to as 'gender ideology' then I really don't think there's any point in arguing the toss, here.

I’m not sure who you are classifying as a Nazi, but does it occur to you that they might not be putting forward a coherent argument?

I have explained what gender critical means, but apparently you would rather listen to people who you describe as Nazis?

I really don't want to get mired on this one, and it's been worded far more eloquently elsewhere by brilliant people like Judith Butler.

No, she sounds as confused as you.

I really don't want to get mired on this one, and it's been worded far more eloquently elsewhere by brilliant people like Judith Butler.

OK well that... explains some aspects of your approach. Butler is neither eloquent nor brilliant. She is impenetrable and illogical. She massively misrepresents what gender does and how it works, and she identifies as non-binary so essentially claims not to be a woman.

Why Mumsnet? I ask again.

If you want to detoxify the debate, why are you not tackling TRAs? Instead you are in a female majority space telling us how you feel about women's rights.

I can’t see the issue with a 3rd space and I don’t get why it would be outing for anyone. Surely all your Lisa Nandy’s and Owen Jones’ would be totally happy to use them alongside transpeople. Also all the women who don’t care who is in them.

But it would leave a space for women -sorry, people- who only wish to have single sex spaces.

And the fact that women are having to argue to be allowed to keep a fair crack at access to female spaces demonstrates why single sex spaces were needed in the first place and are still needed, with legal protections. Females aren't going to be allowed it through any sense of fairness or compassion or interest in their equality and inclusion etc.

On the subject of genital inspections and toilet passports which you referenced earlier in the thread, why would these be necessary?

This is red herring that genderists like to wheel out.

Of course you can't always tell what genitals someone has, they're generally covered up and some trans people make a big effort to pass. And we've had female-only spaces for generations without having genital inspectors at the doors.

That's because people a) mostly respected that sex-segrated spaces were a good idea, and b) knew there were consequences if they breached the divide. Of course if someone wants to go in and attack a woman they will – but the incidence of that is much lower when most people respect the spaces, monitor who's in them, report problems, and there are clear consequences, both legal and social.

Again compare to your house. Someone comes to the door and says they're the meter reader, you let them in and they're a burglar. Well of course you can't tell. Not even with a genital inspection. But the point is that what they are doing is illegal, they will face prosecution, disapprobation and punishment, and so on. The fact that someone could do this doesn;t mean we should abolish all laws and say therefore everyone has a right to wander into your home unchallenged.

If you really, really want to have a conversation on the finer points of definition then I'll indulge - but I can't see how it isn't going to be profoundly unconstructive.

Well at least you now have a better understanding of where the harder core end of the GC contingent are coming from don’t you Butterfly? You can see where the lines are drawn and asserted. You can see how there is a focus on the absoluteness and immutability of sex and the need to separate spaces based on that essential biological definition of sex. Full stop. You can see how there is no compromise that will keep everyone happy. Not ever.

@merrymouse

If you don't think Nazis are critical of what they refer to as 'gender ideology' then I really don't think there's any point in arguing the toss, here.

I’m not sure who you are classifying as a Nazi, but does it occur to you that they might not be putting forward a coherent argument?

I have explained what gender critical means, but apparently you would rather listen to people who you describe as Nazis?

It's quite astonishing that Butterfly thinks that Nazis were 'gender critical'.

What do you think 'gender critical' means Butterfly? Have a read of merrymouse's post from earlier. You must have missed it.

Link:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4355902-labour-have-committed-to-single-sex-spaces?msgid=111058746

One of the many reasons the Nazis (spoiler alert) lost the war was their refusal to mobilise their female population for munitions work or auxilliary military roles, preferring to rely on inefficient slave labour, and even there they were only interested in male slave labour for weapons production.

They did promote and honour exceptional women like Leni Riefenstahl and Hanna Reitsch, but never put them in one of those nice Hugo Boss uniforms.

@ArabellaScott

Effectively, you are insisting that women have to accede to your demands to avoid 'outing' you, Butterfly.

No, thank you.

In an nutshell.

It's revealing how the prospect of being casually outed is deemed as far more egregious than women being unable to access the spaces and services designed specifically for them.