Gender argument - caught in the middle

[Baggingarea]

I feel totally caught in the middle in this brave new world of gender ID and I guess I’m just looking for somewhere to vent without getting piled on.

I just think the argument has become so unbelievably divided that there’s no room for mediation any more.

On the one hand I see a mean girls club basically bullying trans women online and selectively finding examples of criminals etc to prove a point.

On the other I think the sports industry / politicians are so scared to put a foot wrong they are throwing trans women to the wolves. Like surely there should be some debate and policy making going on. You can’t have trans women dominating womens sports as they have an unfair advantage. Professional bodies should be having serious conversations about this.

In terms of changing rooms etc we need to make sure everyone is happy and feels comfortable. Personally I hate changing in front of others regardless of their gender at birth - why can’t we more provision for individual changing rooms for both men and women?

Like I get how women are so protective of their rights but it’s not like trans people haven’t faced discrimination and prejudice too.

I just hate how I can’t feel like I can’t say these things publicly without being branded a terf or a gender traitor. Stifling debate like this is not healthy!

And a 'middle ground' in many cases is third spaces to provide options for those who do not need a single sex space or in the case of prisons for example, a way to keep everyone safe. This is often suggested by those on this board.

But no, the idea of third spaces is 'othering and transphobic'. Women yet again receive rape and death threats for suggesting such a thing.

So there's no 'middle ground'. Women are being told that single sex spaces are being removed and to disagree is to be a bigot. But third spaces are unacceptable.

It's women who are expected to concede. Always. And we're saying no which is causing a lot of foot stamping.

I don't agree that only one "side" should "get their way" and fuck the rest

I don't think you've thought through what each "side's" position is.

Why not start by trying to do that? Honestly, it'll make things clearer for you.

What does each side think sex and gender is, how can they be recognised in law that is fair?

Not trying to "gotcha" or anything - just that talking abstractly about sides doesn't actually make clear what you think the disagreement is, or the positions are.

Women here (not absolutely all, but the vast majority) would be happy with third spaces for trans people of both sexes being set up. It's not the issue that women are unwilling to talk and compromise. We haven't been asked.

So presumably you have read my comments about religious women and rape victims having to share safe spaces with men. Does that come into your definition of 'complex'? How is it solved?

And presumably you also read my comments about male bodies regarding sports. These are factors that wil never be negated by hormones, so I think you need to consider them in your 'stance' on sports.

I don't agree that only one "side" should "get their way" and fuck the rest

Good thing that no one is really arguing that on FWR then from a Women’s rights perspective.

But neither is it women’s role to ‘fix’ things so transitioned males have options. It is women’s roles to protect vulnerable females and children. Sometimes there is no alternative solution than everyone being treated as their material reality, the sex they are. That also needs to be accepted. That there are sometimes not going to be a solution, but the harm to females and children cannot be allowed because their is not alternative.

Mylittlephonypony With toilets, it's clear to me that there are transwomen who want access to all female spaces no matter what, transwomen who don't particularly care but who don't feel comfortable going into the men's. Women who don't want any transwomen in the toilets point blank, women who don't particularly care and who are fine with transwomen using the female toilets. In an ideal world (in my own head!) there would be 4 categories of toilets: single sex toilets (one for men, one for women) and an "I don't care at all" toilet (one for men, one for women) that isn't exclusively for transpeople, but rather for transwomen and women, and then transman and men. I think that if the above were possible, then everyone's preferences would be pretty much covered, albeit not 100% but I don't think we could get to 100% without excluding people.

However as I've said, I'm very much a "newbie", happy to have the flaws pointed out in my opinion and happy to be told it's a great opinion - I'm still learning so would appreciate no patronising comments.

So weird spaces, like several people above have suggested.

And what would you do about it when because predatory men would target women in the shared space, more women started gravitating to the single sex space, thus removing validation for men?

And when the crime statistics show that rapes and attacks on women increased in these spaces(like research on unisex spaces shows) how would you reduce risk for women.

Finally, if you knew the absolute uphill battle it was to get disabled toilets throughout the country, how can you practically see this happening.

I think your ideas would work in the abstract, but need more thinking through with the real world in mind.

Third spaces, not weird spaces. Typo.

@Fleurtjeblau

Mylittlephonypony Well I don't know what a middle ground would be, I think that's why these discussions need to take place with more regularity in general. I don't agree that only one "side" should "get their way" and fuck the rest, I think it's a far too complex issue for there to only be one solution and it's not right that only one side ends up getting everything they want and the other to be deeply unhappy about it or feel unsafe. That's definitely wrong imo. I admit to not knowing much at all about sports and testosterone/estrogen levels etc but my stance is that if performance enhancing drugs are banned, then hormones that essentially make you stronger should be treated in the same vein and biological men shouldn't be competing against biological women. My thoughts on toilet use are a bit more complex than that. Overall, I think discussion is fantastic and is the way forward, in a space with mutual respect, with no patronising comments or personal attacks. But I am by far not educated enough to debate anything like this at this point, hence why I dont start threads, I'm in a "read and learn" position currently.

Here's one for you.

There are three pools. [This actually happened by the way, I'm not making this up].

One for men.
One for mixed.
One for women.

The males who say they are women, were not happy with either the men's pool, or the mixed pool - they wanted the women's pool.

So they now have all 3 to choose from, whereas women have no pool. They either use mixed, or 'mixed but called women's'. And those that don't want to swim or undress in front of men, or who can't because of religion, now have no pool.

When women decided to use the men's pool, after declaring they were now men, the men called the police and they were removed.

So that is one instance of one side getting everything they want and the other feeling 'unsafe'.

These things never seem to work in favour of females, strangely.

@Fleurtjeblau

Mylittlephonypony With toilets, it's clear to me that there are transwomen who want access to all female spaces no matter what, transwomen who don't particularly care but who don't feel comfortable going into the men's. Women who don't want any transwomen in the toilets point blank, women who don't particularly care and who are fine with transwomen using the female toilets. In an ideal world (in my own head!) there would be 4 categories of toilets: single sex toilets (one for men, one for women) and an "I don't care at all" toilet (one for men, one for women) that isn't exclusively for transpeople, but rather for transwomen and women, and then transman and men. I think that if the above were possible, then everyone's preferences would be pretty much covered, albeit not 100% but I don't think we could get to 100% without excluding people.

However as I've said, I'm very much a "newbie", happy to have the flaws pointed out in my opinion and happy to be told it's a great opinion - I'm still learning so would appreciate no patronising comments.

That is one solution. I do think it will lose traction because it is impractical. But, it certainly is a great way to accommodate everyone.

As others have said, it has been suggested by feminists for many years that there should be at least three (plus of course accessible toilets), it is not feminists that are saying no to that.

It comes down to purity of thought.

Activists push the purity of thought issue all the time. You cannot think of transitioned males as transitioned males. They are only ever to be considered 'women'.

And while I get they want the word women. You then get prominent activists stating things like 'we are now accepted as women, it is discrimination to not accept us as female'. I am paraphrasing but that is what a now ex-academic US cyclist transitioner declared not so long ago.

Accepting 'purity' of thought that transitioned males are women leads to the next boundary creep. It is in action already.

But, you will not find many who would not agree with your suggestion in theory or in intention on this board. Variations of it would be welcomed.

There are three pools.

Something similar also happened in Sydney with some of the only single sex ocean pools left. The females was also used by women who had religion restrictions and there are quite a number of those women in that particular part of Sydney. But in the end those pools are now segregated by gender.

Who got equal opportunity there? To include males of any kind, excluded females who use the space.

I don't agree that only one "side" should "get their way" and fuck the rest, I think it's a far too complex issue for there to only be one solution and it's not right that only one side ends up getting everything they want and the other to be deeply unhappy about it or feel unsafe.

Here here. Inclusion should be something applying to everyone. (Even the females). Equality and access should be a value universally applied to everyone. Diversity means a range of varied services so that there is something that meets everyone's needs.

However you will find that while the pov of women's rights on this board and in grass roots orgs is:

• We need answers that work for everyone

and

• the answer is a range of diverse spaces so that there is something for everyone

The response to this from the political TQ+ lobby is absolute rage.

• there cannot be a range of services with something for everyone: instead male people must have full access to everything and if this means excluding females and preventing their inclusion, access and needs being met, it's their fault and serves them right.

Example: the current Brighton Rape Crisis situation, directly affecting a MNetter in need of their services. Three separate choices exist for TW users: men only, LBTQ+ and the mixed sex women's group. Female users have only one option: the mixed sex women's group. No group can exist for females who need a single sex service to be able to access the service at all: not even on a different site. The mere existence of this is too offensive and upsetting to male people.

• there cannot be anywhere a service that differentiates between female and male people as this is too offensive to male people

• the only possible solution is that all females surrender their sex based rights, language, consent, privacy, dignity, autonomy, visibility in law, equality of access, and if need be just go without services, resources, health care etc but shut up about it.

• police and law should be weaponised to silence females who do not accept their subordinate status in law to male people and this tacit normalisation creeping into law of their purpose as resources for male people, which creates a two tier hierarchy of humans while at the same time maintaining a fiction that sex is an optional choice without real meaning.

I see one of these positions as morally ok and the other as morally abhorrent.

I understand the argument for third spaces, but I also understand why some feel that a third space is "exclusionary" (not saying I agree, but I understand) which is why, in my mind, four spaces would be more widely accepted. I do fully get that it would be difficult to actually get it into practice, that's why I added the "in my mind", but a possible solution? Yes, I think so if enough people back it and make it happen.

I do also understand the other arguments in the responses to my posts and agree that they're issues, but I'm definitely not equipped to answer those questions and would love to see them discussed and tackled by people who are better placed than I am. That's why I think these "middle ground" conversations are important for all.

Commenting on this as I had a very disturbing experience in a leisure centre yesterday.

I walked into the changing room and immediately walked into a big burly bearded bloke, not a trans woman, but a biological male who identified as male. Then noticed two other men dotted around.
My response was to say “Oh! Excuse me, I’m so sorry have I walked into the wrong side?”
The big burly bearded bloke said
“We’re allowed in everywhere now love.”
With a massive grin and a chuckle.

I felt enormously sorry for the young mother with a towel around her trying to change her baby post swim. She was at the changer in the middle, she had a towel around her and her backside wasn’t properly covered. She hadn’t realised it was mixed until this point either.

Apparently the leisure centre have had to make the changing rooms mixed to appease trans people.

I recognise ty hat trans people have a right to identify however they chose, to dress however they chose and do whatever they want to their bodies.

But right now a man who identifies as a woman has more rights than a biological woman. If this doesn’t define a patriarchal system then what does?

I didn’t feel comfortable at all having men wafting in and out of the changing room. I certainly wouldn’t shower there anymore. And I felt my child was being put at risk too.

The real sticking point is:

Will male people tolerate the existence of a space for females that has to be respected as there for the accessibility, inclusion and equality of females - without forcing entry or destroying its existence?

Look around this board. You will find plenty of TQ+ posters who have stated quite bluntly they will never respect female people's needs or inclusion and will enter what space they want when they want in order to meet their own needs.

This is the real issue. The belief of self and need being justification for behaviour, and the lack of society's ability to say no and to maintain healthy boundaries to manage this behaviour.

I'm definitely not equipped to answer those questions and would love to see them discussed and tackled by people who are better placed than I am.
Why can't you tackled it? Every single poster here had to do their own research to become more informed. Some have academic qualifications, but some do not. There is nothing barring you from becoming more informed.

That's why I think these "middle ground" conversations are important for all.

These middle ground conversations are regularly had on fwr. How do you think some of us automatically knew some issues with them? Because we've listened and learned and been exposed to all ground conversations.

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but it sounds like you want other women to do the work for you?

If you think 3rd (or even 4th) spaces are a good solution, why do you think that the established, well funded LGBT+ organisations (such as Stonewall) aren't lobbying and fundraising to put these into place? Seems like an ideal solution so why would Stonewall focus on removing the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 instead of providing different solutions? Why are they not concentrating on 'broadening the male bandwidth' and encouraging men to become 'more inclusive' and instead are focusing on removing women's services and spaces?

@Fleurtjeblau

I understand the argument for third spaces, but I also understand why some feel that a third space is "exclusionary" (not saying I agree, but I understand) which is why, in my mind, four spaces would be more widely accepted. I do fully get that it would be difficult to actually get it into practice, that's why I added the "in my mind", but a possible solution? Yes, I think so if enough people back it and make it happen.

I do also understand the other arguments in the responses to my posts and agree that they're issues, but I'm definitely not equipped to answer those questions and would love to see them discussed and tackled by people who are better placed than I am. That's why I think these "middle ground" conversations are important for all.

4 spaces?

In your mind, what are these 4 spaces?

@Artichokeleaves

The real sticking point is:

Will male people tolerate the existence of a space for females that has to be respected as there for the accessibility, inclusion and equality of females - without forcing entry or destroying its existence?

Look around this board. You will find plenty of TQ+ posters who have stated quite bluntly they will never respect female people's needs or inclusion and will enter what space they want when they want in order to meet their own needs.

This is the real issue. The belief of self and need being justification for behaviour, and the lack of society's ability to say no and to maintain healthy boundaries to manage this behaviour.

Exactly. A 'female' space that excludes men is automatically the target.

So 100 spaces with 99 being for males or mixed, and they'd want the 1 that is 'female'.

There seems to be no escape from predatory males. Whatever labels they put on themselves.

Mylittlephonypony I can't tackle it here and now because I don't have the knowledge, nor the time to do more research. Could I tackle it if I dedicated enough time to researching and learning? I expect I could.

I'm not expecting other women to do the work for me at all, but nor do I think that I, myself, am the best person to be at the forefront of something like this even if I did have the knowledge. I'm much more of a helper than a leader and where I live, these issues aren't as prominent (whilst remaining important) and it isn't something at the front of my mind, other things are currently. I have massive respect for the women "in the front" and will do what I can to help, but not lead.

@Baggingarea if you want to see reasoned arguments with no unpleasantness - perceived or otherwise - directed at you, try reading Material Girls by Kathleen Stock or Trans by Helen Joyce.

. I have massive respect for the women "in the front"
I respectfully disagree. It's not respectful to assume the women 'at the front' have not considered third spaces or similar.

It's particularly notable that this was remarked upon several times before your post, but you presented it as 'your own solution, which could only have been arrived at from a middle ground perspective'. It's not respectful to not listen to others ideas or avoid their questions.

And yet, even now there is a transitioned male on tiktok saying that 'bigoted' opinions should be met with 'violence'. Because words are violent. And ends it with 'so tell me, do you feel safe now?'

Like the one with the transitioned male in what seems like their parent's toilet. Declaring it was their intention that not one 'bigot' should feel safe going to the toilet.

Posters who declare 'both sides are doing it' have lost any sense of proportionality. They have fallen into this trap that those video makers want. That 'words' expressing material reality are worthy of videos and photos that are expressing actual violence.

There is no proportionality there, it is threats and violence coming from one side. Not just words like 'male', but they use words like 'you deserve any violence that you get and you don't deserve any safety you bigot', and much worse language, threats and slurs than that.

Please explain where the proportionality is that you see to back a claim of 'both sides'.

Mylittlephony Respectfully, you're assuming a fair bit about me there. I never said that other women hadn't considered third, fourth, fifth or sixth spaces, nor presented it as my own never before heard breakthrough solution. I specifically said "in my head this is a solution" in response to someone (maybe you, not sure) who asked my opinion.

I feel the same OP.