Why single sex spaces

[DorsVenabili]

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

@NCBlossom

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.

They were never single sex when the govt made it a big thing in the... 90s?

It was single gender.

Seen docs.

NHS says single gender are you sure?
Govt says yes. But always refer to single sex so as not to confuse public...

I mean it's mind boggling. That whole thing with politicians making a really big thing about it. Speeches promises headlines. Targets fines if breached.

All of that and the whole time we were being lied to about the most fundamental point of it all.

[quote bythere]@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.[/quote]
Nonsense.

Ladies / gents single sex has been the norm for years.

Lesbians are women. Same sex, same socialisation etc. Being gay does not mean they exhibit the same sexual behaviours as men.

I have met so many men who can't conceive of this! Bizarre.

Women's things are for women. Nothing to do with sexual orientation. It's men who pose a risk.

The amount of times it's asserted that women should be/ are wary of lesbians is insulting to women and especially to lesbians.

Men have VERY strongly adhered to etiquette in these situations. Extremely strict.

I imagine as I said upthread this is due to the (irrational) fear so many straight men have about gay men.

I have never heard a call from men to somehow stop any groups of men from using the gents.

Yes I'm sure that many men would be ok with magically those they see as non men going elsewhere. But they're not asking and the system seems to work well.

'As soon as you'd introduce just one other person regardless of either their sex or sexual orientation there could be a problem.'

Sorry I'm missing something.

Introduce?

What situation are you referring to?

Was it you with the sex in hosp stuff earlier?

This is about hospitals? Sorry if misunderstood.

@PickAChew

What a bizarre extrapolation, Holly. Do tell me what perspective a man can add to a women's group, discussing women's issues, as relevant to women.

I do not attend such a group, but if I did and wanted to extend my own understanding of women's issues, beyond my own lived experience, I wouldn't be looking for a man's opinions. Nor would I feel comfortable sharing some of my own experiences, with a man in the room, whatever his intentions.

Does that mean I would exclude my husband from my private thoughts on this, or any matter? Of course not.

Does this mean that men will routinely be excluded from the births of their children? Why should it? How ridiculous.

I’m more worried about the overall trend of moving women and women’s sex specific issues back out of the mainstream. If we say that only women are qualified to talk about issues relating to the female sex, are we then also saying that only men are qualified to issues relating to the male sex. In which case I can see it wouldn’t be such a leap to think that we might start segregating society along sex lines. I’m which case it’s not such a leap to worry that women might be pushed back to the margins of society. Once again. It just feels a bit regressive to me.

@RedDogsBeg

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?

Do you really think women in the Victorian period were embarrassed to talk about sex specific subjects? If so why? Do you think that it might be because they were taught that in a patriarchal society it was poor taste to embarrass men by talking about ‘whisper’ women’s issues. I can guarantee they were talking about them in private (I.e when no men were around). I just don’t understand why some women are so keen to push sex specific concerns back into the shadows, as it were.

The suffragettes didn’t ban men from campaigning for them just because they were fighting for the female vote. Individual men are not our enemy.

My humble opinion anyway. And I’m just articulating my slight discomfort with the idea that female sex issues should only be discussed by women. It feels almost like we are giving men permission not to care (which feels like we are going backwards)

@1Endeavour2

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.

But do you think the provision of single sex facilities in this context sends out (not so) subtle misogynistic messages? I.e women are given safe spaces because of course men cannot be expected to control themselves? It takes the personal responsibility away from men and almost sends the message that they would be forgiven for groping a women if she moves out of the designated female area?

I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist in this case because obviously women need and deserve safe spaces but I just worry about the message it sends in the long term. Women should not need to be kept safe from men. Men should be taught to keep women safe.

But do you think the provision of single sex facilities in this context sends out (not so) subtle misogynistic messages? I.e women are given safe spaces because of course men cannot be expected to control themselves? It takes the personal responsibility away from men and almost sends the message that they would be forgiven for groping a women if she moves out of the designated female area?

So what do you propose here?

And do you think you could look into the eyes of the overwhelming number of victims left in the wake of your solution. Which is what, to not have these provisions available for women and to merely have a education service that males should remember to behave themselves ?

While I get your point, when there is a significant issue ingrained to such a degree, safeguarding measures need to be taken.

And I know of no country that has reached the point of being able to abandon safeguarding yet.

Does anyone else?

@Holly60
Men should be taught to keep women safe.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Men should be taught to keep women safe.

How would this work in reality?

Would a non-violent man like my partner be expected to put himself in danger to protect a woman from a violent man? When he's already many more times likely to get attacked and seriously injured than the average woman.

Why would a non-violent man be any more responsible for defending women than a non-violent woman would?

And I still cannot believe we are being told again that safety and privacy should be removed because of someone’s nice friend. And this time we are told we have regressed to the 1950s because we do.

Again we see someone blindly prioritising males over females fully telling us that ‘one’ trans criminal shouldn’t mean policy reflects that potential. All the while ignoring the glaring statistics of just how many transitioned males are in prison for sex offenses. How many got a lenient sentence by the way and was not sent to prison for their crime? I know of at one, how many are not published.

And when those sex offenders are out of prison, how do we know how to avoid the spaces they are in? Will they have a sign to warn us?

I would tell your friend that perhaps they should have considered females who needed to not have them as a male in their space in the first place and why they didn’t start to campaign for specific services for their needs years ago.

In my youth I would have been one of those saying I would share. But as I discovered more women and girls in my life being raped or sexually abused, I soon realized that those voices were being withheld out of fear. So, I understood then that the answer is no now and it actually always was.

That some males took that entitlement, is not women’s to fix now that the issues with that ‘entitlement’ are exposed. Females should have been given full rights from the start, not ‘full rights minus those of vulnerable males’.

Crack on though. Readers and contributors alike on this thread have likely seen this before and see the hypocrisy behind it.

Men should be taught to keep women safe.

Maybe we need to have a male protector everywhere we go?

I think it is marvelous to still see complete optimism that teaching males to not harm women will mean 100% compliance.

Even Star Trek could not achieve that!

Of course men should be taught to keep women safe. But how? Until we have a way of doing that (so forever) we need sex segregated spaces. And actually if/when we teach men that we still need sex segregated spaces for dignity.

And to the PP who's lovely transwoman friend would never harm a woman. I'm sure that's true. Neither would mine. Neither would my teen DSs ( at least I bloody hope not). But I know, because he told me that my teenage abuser absolutely would have self IDd as a transwoman on some days of the week so he could get into my "female only spaces." So while it's totally shit for the 'genuine' (for want of a better word) and innocent TW we have to keep them all out. Because we just can't tell if they are the nice kind or the rapey abusive kind.

In the same way my teens know to cross the road if they are walking behind a lone woman in the dark. They know they aren't going to attack her. She doesn't. In the same way my feminine looking 14 year old has to chose to use the mens (and he's been told to fuck off to the ladies more than once) or hold it until he gets home. Unless we can find somewhere witj 'a toilet' rather than mens and womens. Women's safety and comfort at knowing they are in a female only space comes above his need to pee.
It's shit. It really is.

Individual men are not our enemy

No, but individual men are responsible for their actions.

Here's an example for you to ponder:

A poster on here was involved in a group set up for women to discuss the physical effects of miscarriage on women's bodies a TW (MALE) insisted they be included in the group, now what the hell insight could that TW provide to the group, they would never and will never suffer a miscarriage therefore the physical effect of miscarriage will never impact their body.

Women should have the right to discuss issues they want to discuss in the manner they want to discuss them without male involvement, it's not hiding the issues away and whispering about them as in Victorian times, it's women deciding what they want to talk about and with whom.

I just don’t understand why some women are so keen to push sex specific concerns back into the shadows, as it were.

No-one is suggesting this, women should be the ones speaking about their issues, their voices front and centre, their voices listened to, their experiences driving the narrative.

What you seem to be saying is that women need men to speak on their behalf. In a sense you may be right because men are listened to more than women in this patriarchal society but that's what needs to change not be entrenched.

Would a non-violent man like my partner be expected to put himself in danger to protect a woman from a violent man? When he's already many more times likely to get attacked and seriously injured than the average woman.

A man is more likely to be able to help a woman actually being physically attacked in real time than another woman is.

A man is more likely to be able to help a woman actually being physically attacked in real time than the woman victim is to be able to get away or defend herself.

A man is more likely to be able to help a woman actually being physically attacked in real time than another woman is.

IME although men might be physically more able, women are psychologically more able in these cases. I've faced down a good few violent men in my time, both personally and professionally. Men tend to get thumped but women tend not to (although there have been close calls).

I'm not sure about stranger male on female attacks because I've never come across one.

I'm not sure about stranger male on female attacks because I've never come across one.

Except on myself of course. How sad that I didn't even think about that. But yes, I've been assaulted in the street of course.

@MrsTerryPratchett

I'm not sure about stranger male on female attacks because I've never come across one.

Except on myself of course. How sad that I didn't even think about that. But yes, I've been assaulted in the street of course.

Sorry to hear you've been through that and I agree isn't it terrible we are so used to being at risk that we almost discount our own experiences

When I was attacked I know that the average man would have been much more likely to be able to physically remove the attacker from me than the average woman. That was my point I guess.

Yes, in a verbal dispute that hasn't tipped over into violence perhaps there's something to be said for women being less likely to be hit if they intervene.

But if a woman is already being physically assaulted, the average man is far more likely to be able to stop the perpetrator than the average woman due to size and strength.

And before someone comes on to say they are a female black belt who is stronger than their slim husband... I've said 'average' there for the sake or argument. In most cases, it's true. There are always outliers but I'm talking about averages / norms.

DH and I have both done martial arts. He could kill me with his little finger. I could probably hurt him if he stood still. I do get your point.

IME although men might be physically more able, women are psychologically more able in these cases. I've faced down a good few violent men in my time, both personally and professionally. Men tend to get thumped but women tend not to (although there have been close calls).

I was about to post something similar.

A woman has a much better chance of defusing the situation and a violent male knows he's more likely to get away with thumping a male as it may well be dismissed as a scrap.

@KayKayWat

IME although men might be physically more able, women are psychologically more able in these cases. I've faced down a good few violent men in my time, both personally and professionally. Men tend to get thumped but women tend not to (although there have been close calls).

I was about to post something similar.

A woman has a much better chance of defusing the situation and a violent male knows he's more likely to get away with thumping a male as it may well be dismissed as a scrap.

As I said yes, in a verbal dispute that hasn't tipped over into violence perhaps there's something to be said for women being less likely to be hit if they intervene.

But if a woman is already being physically assaulted, the average man is far more likely to be able to stop the perpetrator than the average woman due to size and strength.

But if a woman is already being physically assaulted, the average man is far more likely to be able to stop the perpetrator than the average woman due to size and strength.

I'm still not sure if anybody is obliged to physically fight somebody to defend a complete stranger. Wouldn't calling the police be the best action? Especially as you can then end up in trouble with the law if you hurt them.

Also, would it then stand to reason that a group of women would be obliged to intervene and fight off a lone attacker beating up an innocent man? (can't see this happening).

Wow talk about a derail.
It would be wonderful if women didn't need single sex spaces but as everyone on this thread knows that is not the world we live in at the moment.
So why single sex spaces? Because we still need them for safety,dignity and privacy reasons.
So why can't we include transwomen? Because they are male and present the same danger to women as any other males and also, as they are members of the opposite sex, they are just as much a threat to our dignity and privacy as any other member of their sex