Male violence is the problem but we should still keep sex-based protections

[Whatiswrongwithmyknee]

A conversation with a friend last night re: trans issues. She said that the problem is male violence and that trying to manage the issue by providing female-only spaces is stopping people focusing on that as the core problem. Hence she's not worried that we now have no protected female spaces.

I can see where she's coming from but using this as an argument to let transwomen into female spaces seems a bit shit to me tbh. It's like saying that crime is the problem so lets focus on doing something about the causes of crime rather than having a police force. Yes we need to do something about male violence but whilst we are doing so we also need to listen to the victims of that regarding the supports they need.

Can you help me think through why this is not an OK stance to take?

If someone is going to commit a crime they need means, motive and opportunity; single sex spaces reduce opportunity and are important in making women feel safer.

When we fix male violence we can abandon single sex spaces until then they are necessary mitigation against it.

Wearing a seat belt doesn't prevent car accidents but I still wear one.

@SportsMother

This is equivalent to the fool I read that thinks the way to stop sexual assaults on women is to prohibit single sex schools.

That Irish journalist was it, after poor Ashling Murphys death.

The great and good in Ireland still so bravely battle against an enemy that's dead 20 years. The priests aren't our fucking problem any more. But today's problems? Nah. It might interfere with the the telly round table to NGO to politics roundabout.

Sureky that’s an oxymoron?????

She's right that the problem is male violence. Ask her how long it will take to solve. Then ask her what we should do to protect women until then.

@titchy

She's right that the problem is male violence. Ask her how long it will take to solve. Then ask her what we should do to protect women until then.

Yes that's what I thought titchy. It's throwing a load of women under the bus whilst we get male violence sorted. It's also IMHO enabling male non physical violence to allow them into female spaces. I wanted her to check her privilege tbh. It sounded like middle class pontificating from someone who is white, able, middle class and educated and had a stable upbringing. She's not the one who's going to be locked in a cell with a male.

So lions are dangerous. Keeping lions away from people gives people a false sense of security so we should let lions and people fight so we can see how dangerous lions are?

It's not a stance she's taking because she believes in it- it's a stance she's taking in order to avoid sharing yours, without feeling guilty.

It's the same as the kind of people who loftily say well, they want a communist society and so never turn up to discuss how to improve workers' rights in the capitalistic here and now; or the prison abolitionists who avoid discussing what they can do to support women in prison/prisoner welfare charities.

It's all an excuse to do nothing while feigning moral superiority. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, so I recommend you don't spend time trying.

You can't reason some

@PastMyBestBeforeDate

So lions are dangerous. Keeping lions away from people gives people a false sense of security so we should let lions and people fight so we can see how dangerous lions are?

To be fair it's not about false sense of security, it's about her belief that we are losing focus on the core issue which is 'why are men so violent?' and as we're busy mopping up the outcomes of that violence we are not actually working on preventing it.

Not sure it has a different outcome though!

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

It's not a stance she's taking because she believes in it- it's a stance she's taking in order to avoid sharing yours, without feeling guilty.

It's the same as the kind of people who loftily say well, they want a communist society and so never turn up to discuss how to improve workers' rights in the capitalistic here and now; or the prison abolitionists who avoid discussing what they can do to support women in prison/prisoner welfare charities.

It's all an excuse to do nothing while feigning moral superiority. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, so I recommend you don't spend time trying.

You can't reason some

These are really interesting points and make perfect sense. It does seem like a perfect way to devolve responsibility and never have to get your hands dirty whilst continuing to think that you are the better person. I actually think this argument came from her hugely naïve 17 year old daughter and it is so disappointing that she could not be the adult and help her child think through what she is actually saying.

OP, look at the thread on Janice Turner’s article in The Times.

The bottom line is single sex spaces are the law. Why would allowing male bodied people into a female area be safe? It’s safeguarding.

Another point: it's not just about violence and crime. There's also privacy and dignity - women's boundaries and consent. I find it very sad that these are seen as less important than the wishes of males. Why does a male's desire/wish to use a space occupied by females override the wishes of a female to have a male free space?

I do know people who see single sex spaces as protective in the way a prison (or lions cage) is - the men's is there to keep the risky people in one place. They see that the "at risk" people could happily share. I don't agree with that viewpoint because the categorisation of risky and at risk is subjective. Everyone in prison is risky in some way, but some of them will be at risk in prison (we still don't let them out, although we do seem to put some in with women).

However, I do see this as an attitude that recognises male violence and is coherent. Perhaps remind her about minority women whose religions don't let them share?

She said that the problem is male violence and that trying to manage the issue by providing female-only spaces is stopping people focusing on that as the core problem.

Foolish whataboutery.
In addition to some of the previous comments, on a purely practical level if women retain safer spaces, then that should mean that there will be that bit less male on female violence, thus enabling more focus to be given to preventing male violence elsewhere. It's idiotic not to do the easier, no-brainer thing first!

There are plenty of times when we patch the symptoms whilst trying to fix the problem - it's not mutually exclusive

Giving people painkillers whilst the antibiotics take effect
Sending good parcels whilst trying to stop the war

Does she lock her front door when she goes out? If yes, why doesn't she focus on the core problem aka crime?
Also I don't see male violence as a problem women can ever sort out but as something only men can fix.

'Male violence is the problem but we should still keep sex-based protections'

OP I don't understand your title. The 'but' negates what went before it, so it doesn't really make sense. Do most rational people think that getting rid of sex-based protections would eradicate male violence? No, they don't. Those that do are, imho, deluded fools. Male violence is the problem so/and/therefore we should still keep sex-based protections.

Surely you have to ‘fix’ the problem of male violence BEFORE you scrap single sex spaces? Her approach (scrap single sex spaces and then fix male violence like that’s easy) implies that she would be willing to through women under the bus in the meantime.

It’s an absolutely insane argument to just get rid of safeguarding women altogether-
Would she remove airport security and take the risk of a hijacker or bomber getting on her plane?
Would removing airport security make acts of violence more or less likely?

@Rightsraptor

'Male violence is the problem but we should still keep sex-based protections'

OP I don't understand your title. The 'but' negates what went before it, so it doesn't really make sense. Do most rational people think that getting rid of sex-based protections would eradicate male violence? No, they don't. Those that do are, imho, deluded fools. Male violence is the problem so/and/therefore we should still keep sex-based protections.

I'm not sure I agree that a but eradicates what went before it but it may not matter in terms of the discussion. I don't think she was arguing that getting rid of sex-based protections eradicates male violence just, I think, that focusing on the sex-based protections means we are not focusing on the core issue of male violence.

Abusers love that attitude.

Look the other way.

The only way to eradicate male violence is to eradicate males. Obviously, that is not going to happen (nor would I want it to happen). In the meantime, let's keep our rights based places to ourselves. Where is her common sense?

It's not one or the other.

She's twisting the argument that's used around women not going out alone or on the bus at night because of high level of male attacks on women. Eg the women's only busses etc.

It's not quite the same.

Those situations are different in that those are public areas and there should be enough safety for us to go about normal day to day activities.

Single sex spaces are places where women go for reasons where potentially going to be more vulnerable due to their sex. Eg prison, rape crisis, hospital, Gp for gyne issue.

The reason they came into being in the first place is that these are the spaces male violence and sexual assault has always been focussed on.

That's why women's loos and prisons were created in the first place.

That's why we can request a female Gp and an escort.