Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why single sex spaces

235 replies

DorsVenabili · 13/10/2021 23:11

the debate about single sex space re trans rights has made me question the basis for single sex spaces in general (and not just in this context) - more philosophically. There doesn't seem much discussion in the various acts as to why they are needed.
I think my question is what do we feel more comfortable being naked in front of people of the same sex- is this nature or nurture/society. I don't think its to do with sexuality as a woman ( and as a girl)- i don't feel more comfortable with homosexual men than I would with lesbians

OP posts:
RedDogsBeg · 19/10/2021 16:19

I’ve seen posts recently where people have been insisting that discussion groups on ‘women’s issues’ should be strictly women only

Why the hell should men be included in discussion groups on women's issues?

I really worry we are putting these things back out of the mainstream, and going back to a situation where they will only be mentioned in hushed tones, when no men are about.

Uh no, it just means that women will be talking about women and for women and on subjects that effect only women, that's called progress and women we are a world away from the Victorian era where women were embarrassed about all things sex and women related. Women are actual fully functioning grown ups with education and careers and everything or hadn't you noticed?

It doesn’t seem that far fetched that at some point, some women are going to insist that, for example, men should not be present at a birth. As was the case in the Tudor period

If a woman doesn't want a man in attendance at the birth that should be her right and her call, your objection to this is what exactly?

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 19/10/2021 16:29

[quote Cascascascas]@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I agree with better diagnosis but I don’t agree that these odd cases make good law.

My friend is a woman. She always felt like that and had the guts to be her.

Why should bad people penalise her?[/quote]
Yeah! I have a transwoman friend too. You'd be very surpised how many here have transfriends and relatives. He is certain that, no matter what he does to his body, it remains male. He has recently re evaulated all the times he used female facilities with little or no thought for the eomen in them. That has caused him great heartache. His entire adult life has not been what he imagined it to be.

He blames TRAs, agitators, lobbyists for all of this. Not women. They aren' the 'bad people' no matter how angrily they react.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 19/10/2021 16:31

Men who assault women are criminals.
Trans women are not.

Surely @Cascascascas that's just very poorly typed. You can't be saying that transwomen who assault women are not criminals! Can you?

Try again. We can wait...

Namenic · 19/10/2021 17:00

I think 3rd space toilets with a washbasin in cubicle would be really helpful. If I was with my male children I would probably use them (as 1 is quite tall and almost 8, but anxious).

Cascascascas · 19/10/2021 17:17

The example above with me mentioned is a joke. One person proves nothing.

Sorry I could reply to you Hording for some reason. Ummm perhaps as you are talking nonsense

RedDogsBeg · 19/10/2021 17:25

@Cascascascas

The example above with me mentioned is a joke. One person proves nothing.

Sorry I could reply to you Hording for some reason. Ummm perhaps as you are talking nonsense

What example above?

One person proves nothing, so your transwomen friend being lovely and no threat proves nothing either.

Safeguarding is predicated on that one person scenario because one is one too many, you do understand that, don't you?

The only one talking nonsense here is you, surely you are capable of answering questions intelligently and coherently?

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 19/10/2021 17:38

The example above with me mentioned is a joke. One person proves nothing.

Odd that your friend, your 'one person' seems reasonable to you yet mine doesn't!

And anyway, as others have said, safeguarding is predicated upon one hypothetical person!

And you @Cascascascas till have to explain what those two lines actually meant. I am making perfect sense. It is you that might have lost that particular plot!

Kosmin · 19/10/2021 17:56

@HoardingSamphireSaurus
*I have a transwoman friend too. You'd be very surpised how many here have transfriends and relatives. He is certain that, no matter what he does to his body, it remains male. He has recently re evaulated all the times he used female facilities with little or no thought for the eomen in them. That has caused him great heartache. His entire adult life has not been what he imagined it to be.

He blames TRAs, agitators, lobbyists for all of this.*

I haven't met any transwomen, so I don't know how many share your friend's perspective. If a significant proportion were able to make it known that they disagreed with the activists and lobbyists, it's hard to see how they could counter that. Everyone else who pushes back is labelled a transphobe. I don't think they could make that stick against transwomen.

Kosmin · 19/10/2021 18:08

@Cascascascas
Men who assault women are criminals.
Trans women are not.

I'm pretty sure this means "trans women are not necessarily criminals - not criminals as a consequence of being a trans women."

It does not imply that they can't be criminals. There is overlap (trans women who assault women).

Do all trans women have to be treated the same way? (Because none can demonstrate they don't pose a risk)

RedDogsBeg · 19/10/2021 19:01

Do all trans women have to be treated the same way? (Because none can demonstrate they don't pose a risk)

Uh, yes precisely because they cannot demonstrate they don't pose as risk, much the same as men are treated. Men who are not TW aren't permitted to access female single sex spaces and services which could be argued by men as discriminatory. To allow some TW in and not other TW would be discrimination against those who are not allowed in so the blanket rule should apply - none allowed into single sex female spaces and services, one clear rule, no discrimination, equal and fair treatment for all.

It's not just about risk, it is also about privacy, dignity and comfort for women, are women not worth that consideration?

JellySaurus · 19/10/2021 19:03

I haven't met any transwomen, so I don't know how many share your friend's perspective. If a significant proportion were able to make it known that they disagreed with the activists and lobbyists, it's hard to see how they could counter that. Everyone else who pushes back is labelled a transphobe. I don't think they could make that stick against transwomen.

The term 'truscum' was IIRC coined by TRAs as an insulting way of referring to trans people like Miranda Yardley and Rose of Dawn, TW who openly recognise that they remain male and are not entitled to colonise women's spaces and appropriate women's experiences.

ErrolTheDragon · 19/10/2021 19:08

Kosmin - The first legal case of a 'transphobic hate crime' was brought by a women (as in XX female) against a transwoman (Miranda Yardley). It was quite rightly thrown out, but the fact it even got past the CPS shows the extent of the problem.

1Endeavour2 · 19/10/2021 21:11

Ask Indian women why they have single sex carriages in India. It is because women are constantly groped and worse on public transport in India. Just imagine how close people stand. Some have even been raped by one or many men. And killed. It's a choice to use single or mixed sex carriages. Overwhelmingly they prefer single sex.

So many men in India and aborted girl children means fewer available women. Brides cost a lot of money and they don't have it. So they touch women as and when they can.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 19/10/2021 21:19

As has been said @Kosmin, transwomen like my friend have long been vilified by TRAs as traitors, truscum.

It is logic like that that leads many here to ask for clarification when presented by poorly written sentences, sometimes the weirdest interpretation is indeed what was meant. Which is why I asked @Cascascascas to clarify.

And yes. We all know that, much like all other men, not all transwomen are violent. But, again like all other men, we can't tell by looking at at them. So, like all other safeguarding, we protect against the hypothetical one!

It's that, the logical premise all safeguarding is based upon, that TRAs insist is gender critical women saying that all transwomen are rapists. We aren't. We are saying they are all men and statistics tell us their offending patterns are as all other men. They do not become less violent, less likely to assault, to rape women by mere dint of saying they want to live 'as a woman'.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 19/10/2021 21:21

@ErrolTheDragon

Kosmin - The first legal case of a 'transphobic hate crime' was brought by a women (as in XX female) against a transwoman (Miranda Yardley). It was quite rightly thrown out, but the fact it even got past the CPS shows the extent of the problem.
Brought by the employee of the transgender charity, Mermaids.
NiceGerbil · 19/10/2021 21:37

'@NiceGerbil
Reported to WHO exactly? And on what grounds?

Report to other people or authorities, depending on the situation, availability and degree of concern: other people, HR, security, police. On the grounds of suspecting them of violating single sex spaces.'

There is no law against simply going into general opposite sex toilets. Why would there be? It was never needed. It was a very strong social convention that was enforced by prior people in there or about the place pretty successfully.

Eroded now and so it's fucked the whole thing up.

Eg in some circs it's always happened that women and sometimes men have come into the other toilets.

There would generally be a head poked carefully round the door in the ladies and sorry do you mind if I come in for a sec because X and IME would be reasonable and women would say yeah.

With women going into to the it was more sorry really sorry just nipping to cubicle cos X eyes ahead straight in. The men didn't tend to react.

Why would that be against the law?

Some things are just social norms and generally adhered to and if not it's fine/ expected for people to say something, etc.

You can't legislate for everything and nor should you.

Everything was fine including for the small number of TW in society before all this. The TW didn't take the piss IME and the women turned a blind eye.

Then this lot came along and they have fucked over women, girls, TW from before all this, and a load of other groups.

Women are simply trying to hold on to things that were totally socially understood and accepted, and worked well for everyone. Taking bogs changing etc.

The NHS prisons more complicated picture with public being misled/ left to incorrectly assume things for years.

LobsterNapkin · 19/10/2021 21:40

@Namenic

LobsterNapkin - yes it is likely to be perceived danger. But there is also a real reason for that perception.

Certain groups - women, smaller men, children, injured people may rationally feel more ‘danger’ in situations. Almost all of these groups will feel more threatened by men than women. Whilst single sex spaces does not fix all threat of violence, it can reduce it for women and girls. 3rd space toilets with floor to ceiling walls and washbasins can also help other groups.

Personally I feel more comfortable becoming naked in front of certain people (eg v close relatives, medical professionals) regardless of their sex than other people. For non medical people I do not know, I am more comfortable with being naked in front of women than men. I think it’s pretty rational as they are less likely to assault me and if they did, I am more likely to be able to to successfully defend myself.

Oh yes, for sure.

What I would say is that there are certain parameters that we work within, in terms of our biology, psychology, and the environment. But human beings also have some real capacity to adapt to different ways of doing things and so different societies can come up with different solutions that will work.

For our society separate public toileting facilities often make sense, and it's not like another better approach is really on the table. But at the same time, I think we can be honest that the specific norms of each society have a significant cultural element.

ANewCreation · 19/10/2021 21:42

To try and answer your question, OP
Most of the time, it really doesn't matter to me personally whether a generic activity - evening class, orchestra, neighbourhood watch meeting - is mixed or single sex, maybe because I think of myself as a person first and foremost - and because I have been fortunate enough throughout my life to have had positive relationships with men.

But I want to know what the rules are at the outset, so I can make an informed choice. A bit like ordering in a restaurant where you decide beforehand if you are going to share with anyone or not. Don't decide once we've ordered that you would like half the food on my plate...

However, for anything where I may be in a vulnerable position, undressed, incapacitated etc it really does matter to me and I then would want to be in a female only space. I don't believe that people can change sex, so a male person, no matter what medication or cosmetic surgery they have done to their body, can never be a female person.

As for the 1950s jibe earlier, I have a lovely family with whom I am fortunate to be entirely safe and yet, for my own privacy and dignity, I don't choose to be undressed in front of them. My personal boundaries.

If I go swimming I ideally like to change in a single lockable cubicle but, failing that, the camaraderie of a single sex space is fine. I have never felt physically threatened on any level by a woman and experience a sense of relief and relaxation when it is an all female environment, though I still manoeuvre a mean towel!

When my boys and girls were very young we used to pop them all in the bath together but as soon as each hit a time when they expressed any discomfort, they showered by themselves. Because we respected their boundaries.

Every day around the world, literally millions of highly vulnerable people use men's single sex facilities, thankfully almost without incident.

They are called...boys.

The idea then that a 6' adult male person (regardless of their clothes or the unlikely but possible neo-arrangement of their genitals) using the male toilets/changing facilities is more vulnerable on any level than a 7 year old boy is, quite frankly, balderdash.

And just because some males have been overriding boundaries and making women feel uncomfortable in their own space for 40+ years, doesn't mean other male people can get to do so with impunity.

We were not asked if this was OK back in 2004 and we did not and do not consent to this.

The males who use female spaces to shore up their belief that they are a woman are not nice people if they are choosing to trample over my boundaries and consent when I have said no.

And I am saying no.

bythere · 19/10/2021 22:47

@Unreasonabubble" I don't think I have ever seen an argument from homosexual men who want to share women's changing rooms or lesbians insisting that they use Men's changing rooms."

The discomfort is based far more on actual physical sex than sexuality. Most people, women and men as well, would find a gay person of the same sex in their changing room to be much less disconcerting, if at all, than one of the opposite.

NiceGerbil · 19/10/2021 23:00

'@Cascascascas
Men who assault women are criminals.
Trans women are not.
'

Ooh ooh

I know this one!
Latest popular argument on twitter.
It goes-

Cis men are the risk. Not TW.
TWAW. At risk from cis men as well. ALL women share this threat.
In the extraordinarily unlikely event that a TW does something. Then they were obviously actually a cis man all along.

Simples!

NiceGerbil · 19/10/2021 23:05

[quote bythere]@Unreasonabubble" I don't think I have ever seen an argument from homosexual men who want to share women's changing rooms or lesbians insisting that they use Men's changing rooms."

The discomfort is based far more on actual physical sex than sexuality. Most people, women and men as well, would find a gay person of the same sex in their changing room to be much less disconcerting, if at all, than one of the opposite.[/quote]
I have no doubt that plenty of men would feel much more comfy without anyone they perceive as not 'proper/real men' in their spaces.

For many men. One place for men and one for non men would be aok.

Male etiquette for the gents is VERY strict and adhered to.

Underlying reason I assume is due to vulnerability and the really very deep discomfort of (I'd say) a pretty large proportion of straight men feel about male homosexuality.

Enough4me · 19/10/2021 23:20

@NiceGerbil, close but you forgot it's always women at fault. If a TW does anything wrong it's because the TW wasn't supported by women and was let down by women.

After all bad male behaviour isn't men's fault, but women's ongoing fault.

NCBlossom · 19/10/2021 23:25

I know that hospital wards changed to more unisex ones in the 70s I think onwards. There was a rise in sexual assaults. Also a rise in complaints from women who felt that their rights to privacy and dignity were being eroded. So that’s why single sex wards were bought back in, where possible. And where not possible extra privacy and dignity e.g. curtains.

bythere · 19/10/2021 23:41

@Nicegerbil Yes, that's probably true. The only situation I can think of where you could have people of the opposite sex together and no one would feel objectified would be to have just one lesbian and one gay man in a changing room. As soon as you'd introduce just one other person regardless of either their sex or sexual orientation there could be a problem.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 19/10/2021 23:45

Cascascascas

I think it will move this discussion forward immensely if you read this.

janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

Swipe left for the next trending thread