BC: Do you understand another reason is not to do with the risk of a man going in and abusing the women, but that some women have had serious experiences in SV from men?
LE: Are you asking if I understand that some women have experienced SV?
BC: Yes.
LE: Yes.
BC: And in rape crisis centres, those women need spaces where they feel safe.
LE: Yes.
BC: Do you understand and agree that lots of women experience lower levels of those things?
LE: Yes.
BC: Do you understand lots of women therefore value same sex spaces as places where they can feel safe?
LE: Yes.
BC: Do you understand that the point GCs make is that maintaining those safe spaces, even excluding transwomen, isn't about saying transwomen pose a particular risk?
LE: That's not my understanding. I interpret it as the presence of a TW in a single sex space makes them uncomfortable.
BC: You're right about that. Do you understand that two harms need to be balanced? The potential harm a TW may feel when she isn't allowed in a space?
LE: Yes.
BC: Do you know that most TW are intact males?
LE: No.
BC: Do you agree with me that although we are all careful to respect TW identities, many people still see the physical characteristics of a male body and a male person in a TW?
LE: I don't know what they see.
BC: That's the point isn't it? Everyone has a perception. But lots of people experience the material reality of that person and see male characteristics?
LE: You're asking me for someone else's perception?
BC: But you are very keen on it being offensive to challenge someone else's perception. There may be lots of women who are perfectly comfortable sharing a same sex space with TW. But MF's point is that there are also lots who don't. That doesn't make them bigots. Do you understand?
LE: I understand that's MF's view.
BC: Do you not understand that that's not the same as implying there is a particular risk from TW?
LE: That's not what's in the blog.