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?

Have any actual proper TRAs answered your qu, OP?

I wish they would join in more on threads like this, where we're looking for good faith discussion. I want my views challenged, I would like to check to see if there are weak spots in my arguments, see if I am wrong.

All we get instead are tiresome ad homs and goady trolling.

C'mon, trans allies! Answer us! Please?

Well yes I agree. Considering this blew up in America / Canada first maybe they just didn’t understand it’s supposed to be the same word - just a polite and quintessentially British solution to avoid embarrassment of the polyseme Sex

But in the age of online forms with dropdown lists, that no longer applies. Sex is M or F, including people with various DSDs.

It's beyond the scope of discussion here b/c the OP asked about women.

We don't put men at the centre of the discussion.

I wish they would join in more on threads like this,

They're too busy keeping their heads down trying to hope no-one notices that the acceptance of 100 neo-genders undercuts any possible argument to take gender seriously as a sex substitute.

100 neo-genders undercuts - is this a new hairstyle for Summer?

No. The OP was asking about TW. TW are men. We can't have this discussion without talking about men. That's what the discussion is about.

My point is that it's men who should be having the discussion about any problems to do with gender nonconforming men such as TW.

Any problems to do with TW are male problems. It's absurd that women are having to discuss this at all.

@OldCrone, the OP specifically asks about spaces for women.

Also, we're making the same point.

TW are men. And male violence against males is not a problem for women to solve.

Okay, I have a thought:

TWAW starting position:

'TW are at risk from males' and 'women are at risk from males'

This then is run into:

'TW are in the same category as women due to being at risk from males'

Which slides into

'TW are not a risk to women'

This ideology posits that transwomen are different to other males by virtue of being at risk from other males and suggests this means they are not a risk to women.

It's a very simple logic error, of course.

Transwomen still pose the same several risks to women as any other male (some risks are lessened if penis is removed, but this has no impact on the perception of women involved).

But when you say that TW have the same risk as any other group from the sex class of males you are still going to get the response that you are being highly offensive, because you are not willing to show a belief that a transition means a person leaves their sex class and becomes something wholly different. Mentioning the sex class in itself is perceived as offensive.

The risk to females and the realities aren't really in question, they just need to be shoved under the carpet and not mentioned, because otherwise you are placing limits on how far a male person can be recognised as a woman.

And lets be honest about this, all of this really does mean 'woman' as female. This is it. The 'offense' is a refusal to believe that the sex class has changed.

Most of us here started from an absolute willingness to respect a TQ+ person's choice of words for themselves, their self expression, their self perception, many are fine with 'women' being a term of general respect for identity, the problem has come because that is not enough. It has to be that female is blurred, changed, adapted, regardless of what this does to females in the process and that doesn't matter and you're evil for not blocking that reality out of your mind - because otherwise there are insurmountable limits and boundaries to the male person's transition.

The 'no' is the issue. The ground held by females that cannot be conquered is the issue and the offense. Being transphobic is any, any 'no'. There are no reasons that will ever be seen as good enough to place a limit. And that makes this something that will never work, because other people have rights too.

To be fair, some have tried in the past. But without exception they have used sexist stereotypes and assumed women only exist for the benefit of other to justify their demands.

I don't think any haven't flown off in a huff eventually.

TRAs don't tend to stick around on this site as they believe we don't engage with them in good faith. They present arguments that they think are waterproof because they believe in things like TWAW. We ask for evidence of their claims and it's a bit like asking for evidence that Jesus was the Messiah.

Can you debate properly with a theist who is so embedded in their faith that they believe everybody must live according to that faith? For an orthodox believer, any questions that cast any doubt on the tenets of faith are, by definition, blasphemous and undebatable.

The FWR perspective on discussion in good faith is to listen and reply with statements that are grounded in evidence, and to prioritise the situations of women and vulnerable individuals of any faith position.

The TRA perspective on discussion in good faith is to listen and reply with statements that are grounded in genderist doctrine, and to prioritise the situations of followers of the genderist faith.

@Artichokeleaves , your two most recent comments here are so excellent.

A trans activist (Susan Stryker?) once compared TERFs to Trump when the latter was the president of the US.

Both were seen by her as tyrants deciding which types of refugees are not allowed into their respective countries, the Country of Women (TERFs banning trans women) and the US (Trump banning immigrants from a list of Muslim countries).

Reading Stryker's opinion was one of my early encounters with the gender identity ideology, and it spurred me to become well versed in it.

I rapidly came to the conclusion that at least the vocal trans women activists online are not coming into the Country of Women as refugees but as colonisers.

Refugees don't try to change the constitution of the country, or at least don't get very close to achieving that, but colonisers do.

And the gender identity ideology is doing just that:

The rule for being a citizen of the Country of Women was to be born there, now one central demand is to redefine citizenship as what the refugees have but probably most of the natives do not: an abstract feminine identity.

That is how colonisers act, not how recent immigrants or refugees act. And just as colonisers usually argue that they are bringing good values with them (religion, civilisation etc.), the colonisers of the Country of Women argue that they are bringing inclusiveness and fairness to all.

But they are also controlling the native tongue in the Country of Women, changing the meaning of words and making the use of the old meanings crimes or at least non-crime hate acts.

And that also answers the question sometimes posed "how can people who claim they want to be women apparently hate women so much?"

Because that's just what happens to colonisers. They have to justify to themselves what they're doing, which means dehumanising the existing inhabitants of a space so it feels acceptable, or even right, to be pushing them out of it.

Even if they started off not hating the natives, the worse they end up treating them, the unfairer they are to them, the more they have to hate and dehumanise them to say they deserve it.

And on the actual topic of the thread (sorry for the diversion):

I have had exactly the same thoughts. For instance, why would we ever segregate sports by gender identity? And if we did that, why not on all sorts of other grounds (favourite colour, music preferences and so on). Unless the abstract gender identity (which most people appear not to possess) is assumed to be about femininity and masculinity and that these are about being passive and submissive vs. being active and dominant?

But then we are really deifying sexist stereotypes and building them into societal structures.

Most areas which are currently sex-segregated in the West are based on average differences in male and female bodies and not on some assumed differences in preferences or cognition etc. So they are based on sex and not on social gender norms or roles.

The only exception to that one I can think of is girls' and boys' schools, though perhaps various men's and women's clubs might also be about social gender? I'd argue that the reasons for girls' schools and boys' schools are historically different. Education began for boys only, then girls' schools were added by those who felt that even the distaff side deserved some education.

Some other countries of course have much more sex segregation and the reasons for that are different, usually based on hierarchical views about men and women and about who it is who is responsible for gatekeeping sexual activity and who is free to seek for it as much as he desires.

This is such a good post