What IS the answer?

[Youdonthavetobegood]

I'm firmly GC with my opinion now, and happy with that. But I have a few questions (hopefully not incendiary but who knows these days) but genuine ones that im not really sure the answer to.

When I've had (heated) debates with friends taking the opposite stance, they often come up with the counter argument to keeping female only spaces, as 'where are raped transwomen supposed to go? Where are transwomen prisoners supposed to go? where are they supposed to go if they are domestically abused?'

And I'm really not sure of the answer. Partly I kind of want to say, well it depends how far on their transitioning they are? Like, do they have a penis still? Can they still rape.women? But that somehow feels a bit crass, particularly in the refuge scenario.

So what is the answer to this kind of pushback? A third space? If so, would there be funding for this? It's not as though I don't have compassion for transwomen who have been raped or beaten, so I'm genuinely interested as to the best solution to this, that doesn't further endanger women, or transwomen (I guess in the case of them being in a male prison and fearing for their safety because they are trans.)

What's the compassionate answer?

The dynamics situation for cunt- Housers are just different. Pregnancy, children, economic situation. Risk of serious harm/ murder if found out. All that stuff.

What are the specific needs for TW? How would they best be met? I've never seen anything. Data studies anything.

Just let us in.

where are raped transwomen supposed to go? Where are transwomen prisoners supposed to go? where are they supposed to go if they are domestically abused?

Since TRAs have been pushing for mixed-sex facilities (and in many cases have already succeeded) there are already plenty of places raped transwomen can go. Which makes it all the more disgraceful that TRAs are so heavily pushing to destroy the single-sex spaces that remain. Its not about having places for "raped transwomen" to go, its about destroying places where raped women may go.

Same as with the loo question. It's not about "just having a place to pee", otherwise TRAs would be content with the accessible provision available. It's about the validation and power inherent in taking a previously-female space over.

Same as prison. There are already plenty of specialist wings in the male estate for male prisoners who are at risk from other male prisoners. There's no practical need at all for any male prisoners, including trans prisoners, to be moved into the (much smaller) female state.

Consider, too, that women don't just have the pay gap, but are on average left with a tiny pension. An average private pension for men between 65 and 74 is worth about £165k, but the same for women is worth around £17k. Look at those figures again. It was women who created most of the single-sex services that now exist. And yet people who have enjoyed male-average salaries almost all their lives and who can look forward to male-average pensions, can suddenly have the power to steal women's resources from them. Why should they not campaign for and fundraise for what they need, instead of stealing what women have built for themselves and for other women?

Separate in prison is not acceptable.

A legal group acted (assume free) for a prisoner that they should be with general women inmates.

That's not about safety for TW in prison.

'Why should they not campaign for and fundraise for what they need, instead of stealing what women have built for themselves and for other women?'

Because male.

Same as men don't march about male suicide, go into action on young men being murdered etc etc.

It's expected that others (women) will do all that stuff.

That's why so many men bang on about evil feminists watm. But when you ask what they're doing for the men they are talking about. Total silence.

They can fight for their own spaces, like we had to.

Not we had to.

Because in fact turns out many never were. And others have been opened up.

So we are left fighting again.

The really cool thing is this time.

If we say look prisons sports hosps.

It's because we're essentially the KKK. (Even in the UK...).

Third spaces are the answer. Some trans women are happily in favour of that. It’s only the TRAs, who’ve spent their time pushing to obliterate women’s single sex provision, who aren’t. They don’t care about toilets, they care about replacing sex with nebulous ‘gender’ and redefining a group of which they’re not a member to include them.

As said above, Stonewall could easily have spent their time and money campaigning for this rather than indulging in misogyny and redefining sexual orientation.

Third spaces is so obviously the best way to go. And the motives of those who reject them and insist on accessing formerly female spaces (well, the females in the space really), regardless of the resulting damage to women are painfully obvious.

@SolasAnla- tbh I think we'd all do a lot better not to spend our energy arguing between ourselves about the expression 'cis'.

[quote Echobelly]@SolasAnla- tbh I think we'd all do a lot better not to spend our energy arguing between ourselves about the expression 'cis'.[/quote]
Ok.

So stop foisting it onto people who don’t wish it applied to them.

If you realised just how few people are ‘cis’ you would realise just how meaningless it is as a word.

My answer is always that they belong in the same spaces that all other males go, and that it’s up to the people who run those spaces to make them safe for them. If that means separate facilities for transwomen then that’s fine - but it’s not our job to accommodate them.

Third space/third sport category. Or make men's spaces safer for transwomen and have no third sport category.

Prepared to concede e.g women/girls AND people who bleed/have a cervix etc. As long as we get men/boys AND people with a penis/prostate. But no replacing the word woman or the word man.

Why aren't policy makers allowed to have these discussions/ thoughts? Why can none of this be said in the open? (I know, Stonewall)
Because everything everyone's said has been extremely helpful to my understanding of the issue and how it affects women. It's a scandal that reasonable people can't have these debates outloud when they have such a big impact.

@MiladyBerserko

The answer is NO.

Males can find the solution to their own problems.

Agreed.

I think we also need to stop playing along with the claims that are pushed that males with identities are all vulnerable, living in fear and in need of protection from violence as this does not seem to be borne out by facts & statistics.

It is a narrative used to play on people's emotions and justify the dismantling of the rights of female people.

^Third spaces would lie empty, because they are empty of women.
It's women and their presence who are the attraction. Not the space itself.

After all, who is there to validate their identity if the space is empty of women?

It would mean 'outing' themselves every time they went into the third space. It would mean that they would have to accept themselves aa something 'other' than a woman.
Which defeats their goal.^

Many on this board will understand immediately why the above sums it up so well and why it's so important to males with identities ...I couldn't possibly comment on the reason why for fear of deletion.

It would mean 'outing' themselves every time they went into the third space

Like the 'unsafe in male facilities' bit, this is a complete red herring.

No, it would not 'out' anyone, since mixed sex spaces would be used by all. Many female people are always happy to share on these threads and in discussions that they are able to use mixed sex spaces and would do so freely, and some would do so quite intentionally in support of trans friends. Parents often say third spaces would be full of parents using that space with their opposite sex children.

So there would be this busy mixed sex space serving lots of groups inclusively with what sex anyone was being no issue at all.

There would then be the female only facilities for the female people who cannot use or access a space unless it is female only. This is apparently unacceptable.

So we have to ask the question: who is unable to tolerate that essential facility existing to enable other vulnerable groups to have access to public life? Why should their desire for this resource not to exist and for those people to be excluded if they will not use a mixed sex space called single sex on the door be considered as equally important as the access, inclusion and basic provision being available for those female people? Particularly when the need for appropriate facilities in a third space has been met?

And why the need to be in this space with these female people who cannot use mixed sex spaces? Particularly considering this entry is in flat out disregard of those women's needs, intersectionalities, inclusion, voices, feelings? Are these things actually important, or do they not apply to biologically female people?

It's important to think about the difference between:

In order to be equal in society I want to have what others have too and benefit equally with them (which involves new, adapted situations and provisions)

and

In order to be equal in society I want others to be stripped of what they have now, and for their access and inclusion and equality to be reduced for my benefit.

I dont buy this " outing" stuff.

Who cares.

A) You cant go all bright pink lipstick, lycra, orange tutu then cry that people notice you.

B) even when they notice you, no one gives a shit mate. No one is watching what you do or where you go. They couldn't give a damn you are going into 3rd space toilet.

Anyone else showed this level of paranoia we'd guide them to seek help not indulge it.

Third spaces would lie empty, because they are empty of women.
It's women and their presence who are the attraction. Not the space itself.
After all, who is there to validate their identity if the space is empty of women?
It would mean 'outing' themselves every time they went into the third space. It would mean that they would have to accept themselves aa something 'other' than a woman.
Which defeats their goal.

This is something that needs reiterating again and again. This is the end game. Nothing less than total colonisation. The whole point is being 'accepted' into women's spaces as a woman, that is how they get their kicks (not allowed to mention the actual name for it). It is the whole fecking mission!

'We just want to pee' is a red herring designed to sound fragile and reasonable. But it is completely unreasonable for the simple fact that they should not be there in the first place, they can go pee in the sex segregated space that was designed for them.

We cannot be left to come up with reasonable solutions for people who are determined to be unreasonable.

Someone previously quoted Helen Joyce (who is getting more and more angry), as she says we just have to win this, because there is no acceptable middle ground here that serves everyone. They want something they are not entitled to, and they are determined to bully their way in. We cannot let that happen.

I would advise you that your compassion is misguided OP, we are being played.

We cannot be left to come up with reasonable solutions for people who are determined to be unreasonable.

Indeed.

Someone previously quoted Helen Joyce (who is getting more and more angry), as she says we just have to win this, because there is no acceptable middle ground here that serves everyone. They want something they are not entitled to, and they are determined to bully their way in. We cannot let that happen.

This X 1000.

HMP Downview has a separate unit for transitioned men (transwomen) who are considered too risky to place in the women's estate.

It was set up in a rush after the Karen White case, using space in a women's prison that had been earmarked for recreation and education spaces.

I would say as well that when female prisoners speak up on this, I always hear them say that they don't at all mind having transitioned men in the women's estate as long as they aren't convicted sex criminals and as long as they can be removed if problems arise. I believe that no male should be in the women's estate but that's what prisoners tend to say. I can imagine that males change the dynamic in ways that many women would like.

In a way I think this is a red herring question. The issue of 'where do trans women go?' is a problem that the gender ideologues have created by making 'trans' essentially an unlimited open category, that anyone can enter and without question.

'Trans' people used to be transsexuals, people whose gender dysphoria meant they wanted to be perceived as the opposite sex to manage their dysphoria. I don't think anyone would have had an issue with these transwomen entering women's spaces, and most people would not have known.

The gender ideologues have created these problems by creating this ridiculous undefined open category of 'trans' . Then they blame us for the problems it has caused.

You could also point out to your friends that the solution they want, that anyone can enter a women's refuge/space on their mere say so of being a women retraumatises already traumatised women, means some women will not seek help and has led to women and girls being sexually abused as, inevitably, sexually abusive men walk through safeguarding loophole. Are they happy with women being collateral damage to advance the rights of another group, and if so, why do they think women's rights are limited, but other groups' rights are unlimited?

@Artichokeleaves

It's important to think about the difference between:

In order to be equal in society I want to have what others have too and benefit equally with them (which involves new, adapted situations and provisions)

and

In order to be equal in society I want others to be stripped of what they have now, and for their access and inclusion and equality to be reduced for my benefit.

Quite

Why on earth am I expected to give a shit. They created this problem for themselves, they can work out how to fix it.