Bit late to the party

[Temporaryusernamefortoday]

I realise the below is unlikely to come as a revelation to many of you but it just hit me today and I was so desperate to share it.

I have always had issues with the concept of male bodied individuals accessing female only spaces be it toilets, prisons, hospital wards etc. on the grounds of safeguarding. But I have finally managed to put this view and feelings more succinctly.

One of the arguments for trans individuals entering womens spaces is for safety, because individuals socialised as men and with male bodies can (not all) pose a threat to females in intimate spaces. So why the hell shouldn’t women, human females, be given the same protection? Why can’t those who support self identification etc see the hypocrisy of allowing these individuals access to female only spaces on the grounds of safeguarding and inclusion while removing the right to safeguarding and inclusion from 50% of the population.

As I said, this argument will not be new to many (any) of you but for me to finally put it in words has hit me like a truck and made me very very angry

Could it be because the needs of men, even the ones who like pink sparkling things so therefore must be women, have always come before the needs of women?

You’re right but the answer to why they can’t see it is because it’s not about safety, it’s about validation. They don’t genuinely think that males who identify as women need to be in female spaces because of safety but because they want validation that they are really women. And the feelings of these males and that need is more important than the actual physical safety of women. Because women don’t matter to them. We’re there to be props in their validation fantasies.

Correct, OP. The gender arguments only work if you prioritise males over females.

I’m more thinking in relation to the ‘Allies’. I don’t expect those who would personally benefit from that access to see it/accept it/acknowledge it because they have a reason to ignore it.

For those who have been swept up in the hysteria and are trying to ‘be kind’ ‘do the right thing’, I am saddened that they feel the need to ride roughshod over the rights of many to promote the rights of the few while failing to accept that from a welfare point of view there is at best a zero sum gain, at worst a net loss.

Also massively hypocritical, if taken at face value, tw want to use women's spaces because they're afraid of male violence. Which, they say, is a thing. Women don't want men in their spaces because we're afraid of male violence. Which, apparently, isn't a thing.

Correct, OP. The gender arguments only work if you prioritise males over females.

Which I think has made it clear to many people - including men like me - that such prioritisation occurs and is widely accepted. That is a necessary condition for any of this complete idiocy to gain traction. The fact that has shows patriarchy exists.

Even right types like Brendan O'Neill and Douglas Murray are now going on about their "male privilege" being evident to them.

One of my favourite Jane Clare Jone quotes:

In some ways, they've done us a favour, right, because it's like the greatest patriarchal unconcealment that you can imagine.

It's not a very heartening revelation, but I suppose it may eventually be useful. Exposing the bullshit sexism that underpins and influences and colours and informs so much of society. It's like a big, sexist onion. Layer upon layer.

I like the one that I can't credit to anyone in particular but it's not mine:

It's the ultimate in sexism that we would believe a man who says he's a woman and not the women who say that he's not.

Yup.

The wishes and feelings of less than 1% of the male population trump the inclusion, safety, dignity, wishes and feelings of the entire female population. And those male people's needs could be met without removing needed single sex provision from females, but the male people say no. Because access to the female people in the female spaces is a desired bit, and the consent of those females - well whatever. Reminds me of the leering jeers of 'You're beautiful when you're angry, darlin' from a male who is enjoying making you thoroughly uncomfortable and his power to do it while knowing there is nothing you can do to stop him.

Once that really hits you, you see this for the absolute, ugly male supremacism that it truly is. It cannot be tolerated.

I agree - I remember the penny dropping thinking why TW but not any other vulnerable male - gay men, disabled men, men from ethnic minorities.... surely all of them could theoretically feel at risk from male violence? Eddie Izzard's plan to change into female clothes for the first time in the Ladies, shows how widespread this idea is.

I genuinely think some people come at this thinking the world is clearly split into good people and bad, pretty much along "privilege" lines. They see safety in keeping the danger away, so the males in the male space - like a prison model. They would probably be okay with a lot of gentle, vulnerable men using our spaces. This shows a lot of naivety and a lack of empathy for women, but I do think it's worth recognising that safety can be seen as either separating out the at risk group or separating out the group that put people at risk. It sometimes feels that we're talking at cross purposes not to recognise this difference in approach.