If TWAW, why do we need separate spaces for women?

[Whatiswrongwithmyknee]

Just that really. I'd genuinely like to hear about this from people who believe that TWAW. If we go along with the idea that woman is a state of thinking and nothing to do with your biology, then I would be really interested to know why we want to keep any segregated spaces rather than just having everything open to all (toilets, sports, hospital wards, prisons etc.).

I'm genuinely baffled as to why it makes sense to group me with some male born and some female born people as I can't see what the commonality is.

I don't want this to descend into the normal chaos of non-answers and insults but can anyone just simply explain to me why they think we need separate spaces for people who identify as women?

Trans women are at risk of violence from other men. It's stupid to pretend otherwise.

Women are at risk. But so are trans women.
But then women are at risk when female only spaces are opened up to any man who identifies their way in.

So we really need men, transwomen and women spaces. But that wont happen because it actually isnt about safety. It's about validation. If it was about safety then third spaces would have been accepted but they dont want a third space, they want validation.

The party line is that they are women because they identify as women. The real men in the men's spaces arent the same because TWAW and women need their own space ergo, they do too. With women. So really, it's for validation.

I thought most people who believe TWAW were generally of the opinion that trans people should share women's spaces.

As I see it, some people believe that TW are women, so should be treated as such. So gender segregation continues as normal but with TW just being treated as women.

I see what you mean but women's spaces were set up for female bodied people and if we say that female bodied either is a state you can achieve through surgery and/ or bears no relation to whether you are a woman or not then surely we don't need women's spaces? i.e. the argument we used to have for needing separate spaces evaporates.

It can't just be men's spaces and space for anyone at risk from men surely? If so then effeminate men should also be in men's spaces given the amount of gay bashing which still happens?

Anyway, still not sure what the commonality is between people who identify as women and biological females (most of whom I think have no gender identity).

Research has shown trans people retain the criminal behaviour of their sex and not their adopted gender and as a consequence women are at the same risk from trans women as they are from men. Women need to retain exclusivity in relation to protected spaces. People with a penis do not belong in women's spaces.

I'm not getting why we need to continue segregated spaces though - if TWAW then there is no commonality between women, literally nothing they have in common. So surely then we should open up all spaces to everyone? Gender segregation came about in an era when people thought there was some commonality between all women. If we believe trans ideology then that was wrong.

There's nothing normal about gender segregation. Women have been excluded on the grounds of sex and for as long as it suited them.

This is making me think that without some clear sense of what a transwoman and a woman have in common that the woman does not have in common with a man, this conversation can't go far. Does anyone have an answer to that?

what do you mean?

Because if there are no women's spaces for them to use, how will Tw get their validation?

Well yes that's how I see it but I wanted to challenge my thinking and see if there is any substance to an alternate viewpoint.

Gender segregation came about in an era when people thought there was some commonality between all women

Sex segregation, not 'gender' segregation.

If we believe trans ideology then that was wrong

We don't believe in gender identity ideology so what's the point of your nonsense posts?

We all know the difference between women and men.

So basically you're asking if there's any justification for separating spaces, services, sports etc by 'gender' (whatever that is in any particular culture) rather than by sex?

We can present many reasons for the latter, but I've never heard any rational arguments for the former.

What do I mean?
TruthHertz · Today 00:20
As I see it, some people believe that TW are women, so should be treated as such. So gender segregation continues as normal

There is no such thing as gender segregation. For centuries society has been segregated by sex, and to the detriment of women. Women couldn't join men's societies or clubs or guilds.
I'm sure it's just an enormous coincidence that now that sex segregation is used by women to benefit us (single sex toilets, sports, prisons and other spaces), men want to move the goal posts...

Segregating people by gender seems similar to segregating them by religion. It can make sense to have a separate support group for Muslims, because their faith influences their experiences and may mean they need different support to, say, atheists or members of a different religion. The group members have something in common that is of great relevance to the situation.

It does not make any sense to have a separate toilet for Muslims, because their faith does not influence the way their bodies function, nor does it have any relevance to the privacy and dignity of non-Muslims. What the toilet-users have in common is their physical need to use the toilet, rather than their religions, which are irrelevant to toilet use.

Similarly, when deciding whether to segregate groups by gender, you have to ask what they have in common that is relevant to the segregation. What do Tw and women have in common in their experiences of gender and in how gender has affected their lives? As Tw are male and women are female, and gender stereotypes are applied differently to females and males, nothing much. So there's no point in segregating anything by gender.

I see what you mean but women's spaces were set up for female bodied people and if we say that female bodied either is a state you can achieve through surgery and/ or bears no relation to whether you are a woman or not then surely we don't need women's spaces? i.e. the argument we used to have for needing separate spaces evaporates.

Its about validation for transwomen. But mainly a particular type of transwoman, who suffer from a condition we're not allowed to mention here.

But f you think about Ray Blanchard's typology of the two types of male transsexualism - it's not usually the "feminine homosexual" transwoman who barges in to women's spaces with sword, gun, or aggressive cock.

Because blokes in general, aren't fussed at all about blokes who make them feel a bit uncomfy being shunted in with the women. Win win win for them.

Totally fucks things for women and girls obviously but hey.... Being at constant risk of sexually motived crime of all severities is just a thing we have to live with! So whole thing cool. For men it's general. Yay!!!!

If TWAW, they aren't so there is no answer to this at all. Trans women are trans women.

Being female is not a state of thinking. It is a state of biology and I wish they would just get rid of gender. Now in the state of thinking i.e. gender which should not exist at all no they don't. But in the state of biology yes they do for the following reasons.

1. Women have menstrual cycles period, pads.


2. Men have shown numerous times in history to harass women or far worse when alone, especially if taking clothes of i.e. change rooms. Having separate areas of course does not fully stop it but it makes it a lot harder.


3. Puberty with young girls.


4. Social conditioning across cultures most don't like men to be in areas women are vulnerable doing personal things. Many of those look harshly on the women for allowing it.

Yes transitioning men to women can be harassed or worse if they use male toilets but in reality there is not as many as the media makes out. So most can use the individual toilets or depending on if they are honest with themselves what they truly look like i.e. first transitioning up until very close to changing use the men's as that is what they look like. Then after operation full use the women's.

But no they shouldn't just use the women's on a I feel like woman idea.

But mostly get rid of gender. I personally don't know why anyone has a problem with a man in a dress, makeup or exhibiting behaviour and mannerisms that equate to old fashioned female gender stereotyping and if we stopped that judgement those men who are transitioning would have no problem using the male toilets and fully being who they are. I also wonder how many would actually transition if they could be fully feminine but still biologically male.

Perhaps the way forward until we get rid of gender and gender stereotypes/social expectations is the completely single individual toilets/change rooms rather than toilet blocks is the way to go.

I'm aghast at the apparent violence being enacted on men in the M&S changing rooms, or the shopping centre toilets apparently - I send my boys in there alone!

Why haven't men raised a petition or done anything about these places? If they're so dangerous, surely that's the pressing problem we should be fixing, rather than abandoning our sons to fate unless they'll wear a skirt, in which case they can come in the ladies with us?

OP's point is one I keep making, so I like the question, even if the response so far has been a bit grumpy. (You meanies!)

You get TRAs going on about how they're nobly breaking down a form of discrimination by letting men into women's spaces, but they hope you don't notice that they're advocating for discrimination by "gender", and don't ask them why we should do that.

This whole thing took me about 5 minutes to reject about 6-7 years ago, by basically asking similar questions as OP to myself:

"Are there any circumstances where we currently use sex, where 'gender' would do a better job? Can I think of a single one? In what circumstances should I care about someone's gender and treat them differently because of it?" (I think I wasn't using the word "gender" at the time though - it would have been "sex they say they are", compared to "actual sex").

I couldn't think of any. If gender works better than sex, then that means it doesn't need to be sex-segregated, and can be mixed-sex. And once it's mixed-sex, you can't then justify separating "genders" because different-gendered people have no definable separate characteristics.

It makes as much sense as treating people with different star-signs differently. Society should be gender-blind, just as it's star-sign blind.

The segregation has to be by sex or not be there at all, because only sex is objective, immutable, binary and leading to different enough outcomes to justify the segregation/discrimination.

The same logic is quietly built into the EA2010 - discrimination by sex is generally prohibited, but there are a number exceptions, because sometimes it's important to treat sexes differently. Discrimination by gender reassignment is just prohibited, and there are no exceptions - it's never important to treat genders differently. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Although the GRA complicates that, as it complicates everything, once you get a "legal sex change".

I know three men who were abused in toilets as boys. Not fair on boys having to go in there

Yes transitioning men to women can be harassed or worse if they use male toilets but in reality there is not as many as the media makes out.

Is there any actual evidence that this ever happens? And if there is, is there any evidence that it's worse than for any other group of males who might be targeted, such as gay men, ethnic minorities, disabled men, very young men/boys?

I don’t get why TW objecting to sharing spaces with men takes precedence over women objecting to share spaces with TW. If fear and a perception of humiliation is the main justification for the first, why doesn’t it count for the second? Why are women’s feelings considered unimportant, but TW’s feelings considered paramount, if TW are women?

(As the saying goes: they can’t be women. If they were, no-one would listen to them.)

I also wonder how many would actually transition if they could be fully feminine but still biologically male.

Most 'transwomen' are still fully intact males who have no intention of changing that. Very few of them have genital surgery, and many do no more than dress 'like women'. What we used to call transvestites or crossdressers.