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

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; 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. Which reality is it? These can't exist simultaneously.

Neither argument is being made.

Men are a threat to women. Policies based on the mantra ‘trans women are women’ and ‘acceptance without exception’ allow any man to identify as a woman and deny women language to describe services and rights they need because of biological sex.

If you want to fix the problem, drop ‘trans women are women’. Ideally accept who you are, but even if that isn’t possible don’t insist that people must accept you for what you are not.

That doesn’t mean you will win every argument. Rights law is based on the resolution of conflicting rights. It would mean that you would be basing your arguments in reality, which is a basic requirement of a functioning society.

And regardless of how you identify women on this board are still likely to argue their corner and disagree with you, but there is nothing wrong with that.

The London Cycling Campaign and the RAC have different views about cars and bicycles and lobby on that basis. Tolerance of different opinion is also part of a functioning society.

Angel Raynor on R 4 this morning certainly did not agree that separate spaces for biological women are necessary. So I don’t hold out much hope ta this point.

I was reading today’s article about Raquel RS and the Bristol Uni. Their case is really going to push that clause in the EA, it will be very relevant to Keir Starmer’s statement.

However, I found this paragraph in particular interesting.

However, the group reported that the two trans women said “they thought that by showing up in person and being nice to us, they could violate our boundaries”. The group said it had become affiliated to the student union three years ago and “consulted discrimination lawyers to help us explain why we explicitly wished to implement the single-sex exceptions under the Equality Act 2010”.

@catzwhiskas

Angel Raynor on R 4 this morning certainly did not agree that separate spaces for biological women are necessary. So I don’t hold out much hope ta this point.

This kind of thinking is traditionally thought of as more right wing.

“I don’t feel I need xyz service therefore nobody needs that service and people asking for it must have malign intentions”.

Because for some TW that is the thrill

What was the name of that Labour MP who answered "No" to a straight question " Do women have the right to any single sex spaces?"

Angella Raynor has just lost Labour my vote again.

@334bu

What was the name of that Labour MP who answered "No" to a straight question " Do women have the right to any single sex spaces?"

Do you mean Ed Davey from Lib Dems?

No it was a Labour MP on Twitter. He just answered a flat " no" to the question.

@334bu

What was the name of that Labour MP who answered "No" to a straight question " Do women have the right to any single sex spaces?"

I think that was Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader.

I really can’t understand why any transperson would feel an extra, mixed sex facility would be outing, unless they don’t actually believe all their allies would support them in using them as well.

Surely every person who tweets about trans safety would also use unisex facilities as they don’t feel single sex ones are needed.

I really can’t understand why any transperson would feel an extra, mixed sex facility would be outing, unless they don’t actually believe all their allies would support them in using them as well.

It's almost as if validation from allies isn't a sufficient narcissistic supply or as if the frisson of transgression would be missing.

@Deliriumoftheendless

I really can’t understand why any transperson would feel an extra, mixed sex facility would be outing, unless they don’t actually believe all their allies would support them in using them as well.

Surely every person who tweets about trans safety would also use unisex facilities as they don’t feel single sex ones are needed.

Quite.

As the position is that most people don’t have any issue sharing facilities, then shared facilities should see the heaviest use, shouldn’t they?

Anything else is an acknowledgement that women don’t appreciate sharing facilities with male bodied people, and have to be compelled to do so.

Not being funny, but I'm paying an inordinate amount of time and effort giving consideration and credence to the opinions of people who [disagree with me] (my substitution)

No, you're right, you're not being funny. You chose to come here and you are being given an inordinate amount of time and effort by very many of us engaging respectfully, challenging your views robustly and patiently explaining what you seem unable to hear: we have experiences you don't share, we have needs you don't have and we therefore have rights to female-only provisions in law that can and sometimes do exclude you and all other male transgender people.

Your response is to say yeah I get that but [me me me] and [strawman du jour]. When we address your strawmen and again patiently assert our boundaries, which the Equality Act 2010 actually gives us the right to do, whether we cannot use a mixed-sex provision or will not, you come back with more obfuscation.

And you keep packing your comments full of unfounded accusations. Disagreement is not hostility. Not pandering to the opinions of someone who seems opposed to our rights being fully exercised is not hostility.

I get why you don't like it. I've had my arse handed to me on here before and no, I didn't like it either. But I went away and thought about why I was so robustly disagreed with and realised yes, they had a point. In many cases the arse-handing posters had more than a point, they were right. And I was wrong. That's something I am always willing to think about - might I be wrong on this?

Are you?

Finally, I would like to make you aware of a well-documented sex difference, which may explain why you are so incredulous about us saying sex is easily recognisable and sex recognition is not the obstacle to female-only provisions you seem to think it is.

The sex difference is this: no matter how it is measured, women are consistently much, much better at recognising sex than men. We are much better at recognising other female people and just a fraction less good, but still better at recognising male people.

Evolutionary biologists believe this is a survival skill, sociologists think this is a product of our socialisation, much of which is aimed at female people serving the needs of male people, making it vitally important that we know who we are dealing with.

Much better does not mean perfect, of course, but on the odd occasion when masculine looking women are challenged in women's spaces, they know how to put other women at ease. Effortlessly.

We simply do not have the same problem men do with recognising sex. And once you add hypervigilance into the mix, we get better still. (At least one in three women have been subjected to male violence and hypervigilance is one of the most common symptoms experienced as a consequence.)

So you when you sneeringly dismiss us as "transfinder general" using our "transdar", you miss the point we're making. We're not recognising identities but sex. Because that is necessary for our wellbeing and sometimes our survival.

Not being funny, but I'm paying an inordinate amount of time and effort giving consideration and credence to the opinions of people who systematically misgender me

And the women spending a lot of time reading your very long posts and replying to them are not? They have been rather politer to you than you have at times been to them, and yes, you are systematically misgendering them too in your absolute insistence on stuffing them into the box you have ready for them.

disregard the authenticity of all my life experiences,

Good grief, the irony....

accuse me of appropriating their struggles whenever I elaborate on what I percieve to be a shared point of commonality

I just can't even.

Please, stop with the forced teaming. Women having inner lives and thoughts and feelings and needs based on being female and insisting that they cannot be shoved forcibly into your box where it would suit you to have them are not 'transphobic'.

'We' cannot fix this. In part, because the view of male people (and this is fact, this is the only way to explain female need here, so if this is what you mean by 'misgendering' then no, you do not get to take my words away so I cannot stand up for myself and voice my needs equally) is that the resources are theirs, that they have already been conquered, that female people don't really need them anyway, that any female people voicing issues are misbehaving, and the solution is yet more compromise from the bodies with vaginas.

No.

There will have to be separate provisions, that is the only end point at which this is 'fixed', because this is also the only end point that views both parties as equally human.

Also I have no idea why anyone would suggest genital inspections- I think we all can see how that would play out, as I would imagine we’ve all seen enough unwanted penis to last a lifetime.

It would be massively exploited by those who enjoy exposing themselves to women.

No one here ever suggests it except the TWAW crowd.

No one here ever suggests it except the TWAW crowd.

I would go so far as to say it's a defining characteristic.

It' probably taken hold amongst that sort of Labour supporter who claims a commitment to single sex spaces but doesn't mean it and the frankly antagonistic who believe it's entirely reasonable to change a rationality to achieve validation of an immersive fiction.

What a massive tantrum over the Hugo Boss joke.

From the person that gratuitously inserted the suit wearers into their diatribes in the first place!

Such hypocrisy.

The other Labour MP was Alex Sobel who tweeted No.

Thanks for name of MP. I believe he was also a junior Minister at the time.

Well I thought it was clear enough. The Nazi's failure was in part down to their Kinder, Küche, Kirche ideology that reinforced traditional gender roles. The reference to uniforms concerned Hanna Reitsch who was presented with her Iron Cross wearing a dress.

Regards the Holocaust, I have read Martin Gilbert and cannot recall any reference to transgender victims, only homosexuals.

Thanks catzwhiskas, have now managed to find Tweet.

So you when you sneeringly dismiss us as "transfinder general" using our "transdar", you miss the point we're making. We're not recognising identities but sex. Because that is necessary for our wellbeing and sometimes our survival.

Lets also add the 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 snark in response to women stating that some women will be also harmed in retrospect by knowing the space they thought was safely single sex was actually accessed by males too.

It is clear from the language used throughout many posts now that there is no real openness to trying to understand. So the sneering, aggressive reframing comes through despite the attempt to then couch it all in ‘but I am reasonable really’. It is hard to claim civility from the first posts where the ‘hostility’ of this board was slyly intimated.

@Deliriumoftheendless

I really can’t understand why any transperson would feel an extra, mixed sex facility would be outing, unless they don’t actually believe all their allies would support them in using them as well.

Surely every person who tweets about trans safety would also use unisex facilities as they don’t feel single sex ones are needed.

Well the allies won’t support them on an anonymous forum so i doubt there’s much chance of support in the loos