Reasons to Resist "Third Spaces"

[GCRich]

Obviously I am not proposing that men who identify as trans should be in women's spaces. But what are the reasons to resist third spaces? I'm not looking for a debate - there are abviously reasons for third spaces - I'm just trying to consider whether there may be a fair few good reasons to resist them.

(1) It is tough enough on small businesses that they (rightfully) have to provide third spaces to people (disabled people) who literally cannot access single sex spaces. Giving them further obligations based on feelings not physical need is an unreasonable requirement. It is also tough on the taxpayer when government has to provide third spaces. I can imagine some small business owners becoming transphobic when they realise they have to spend thousands of pounds on building works for a "problem" that has never arisen in their workplace and which counters their legally held views that TW are men, end of.

(2) Some women with trans identities might feel obliged to use third spaces and thus find themselves at greater risk from men that they would have been had they just used women's spaces. The very existence of third spaces might increase the risk of harm to some women.

(3) Trans women don't get validation from third spaces so they are 100% unwanted by the main people who theoretically need them.

(4) We need to bring people together as much as possible - not divide them. Single sex spaces make huge amounts of sense for various reasons. Providing one accessible toilet makes sense (whereas making every single male or female toilet accessible makes much less sense as it would cost too much and take up too much room and would be a disproportionate way of providing for the disabled). But dividing people even further by creating more spaces - when the truth is we are all simply men or women at the end of the day - makes no sense.

(5) When a group ignores boundaries and the truth and courteous debate and instead seeks to bully and threaten and make people feel uncomfortable then one has a moral obligation to resist giving them an inch, for to give an inch is to reward their behaviour, which can only risk encouraging them and people like them. It reminds me of the slogan "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

(6) The third spaces would risk becoming a target from those men who do genuinely hate trans people. Trans people are at risk from transphobic violence (I am not sure whether they are significantly at risk in the UK, I doubt it, but the risk is there) wherever they are. Walking down the street, in the appropriate single sex spacecs for their sexed bodies, in opposite sex spaces, in a pub, in a shopping centre - they could be attacked out of the blue anywhere. But to actually create a space which violent transphobes know to go to if they want a victim could create more harm than good.

So your solution is?

If it's a choice between 3rd spaces or mixed sex I would choose to have 3rd spaces regardless of any supposed downsides of them so that I can retain my single sex spaces as a single sex space

Creating accessible toilets was extremely expensive but was necessary. The blueprint of how to enforce and create needed additional provisions is there, it's been done.

You create the legal requirement.
All new builds must have it or don't get passed.
Local Authorities have staff who go out face to face explaining that yes, this is a requirement and action must be taken, deal with the whines and complaints and no there's no room/no money/don't want to, and help plans get in motion
Governments ensure LAs have grants to help
It becomes the new normal.
Plus: businesses spending fortunes on rainbow marketing and diversity signalling, govt lavishing cash on Stonewall et al, hugely rich charities involved and many private backers, Stonewall able to put pressure on those signed up via their training etc - the disabled had absolutely none of any of this, and where it took frigging years to get any action at all, this political lobby is so well funded and powerful it's got major attempts to change and shift law and major attempts to shift policy going in a few years.

This would be an absolute walk over.

In a few years, hey presto, no one remembers a time where they didn't exist and because - unlike forcibly turning female spaces into mixed sex ones and excluding females and leaving them with nothing - it creates no new major problems, on we all go and it's fine.

Third spaces would respond to many diversity needs, not just TQ+ ones, and the wails about it being outing are rubbish because of how many other groups it would also help.

The one and only sticking point is the issue of validation and of having direct access to females in female only spaces. This is not justifiable. Hence the endless deluge of thrashing around trying to find justifications, such as 'not safe in male toilets' and so on. All of which are incoherent and just don't stack up. It's the 'there's the desired conclusion now lets look for a convincing reason to get it' thing.

Point 6 btw: women have talked about their anxieties and fears about attack and assault etc. I believe the wisdom from the lobby has been:

• this never happens
• NAMALT so it's mean to have concerns until after you've actually been attacked
• They're going to attack you anyway
• You can always call the police once you've been harmed

Actually I think all of that is appalling, and wholly unacceptable, but this is what this lobby have told women, and obviously there cannot be special standards for one group and nothing for another, the values have to be equal.

And there are many answers to improving safety that do not involve forcibly depriving females of single sex provision and thereby excluding many from anything so that male people may meet their needs from choosing their preferred option from everything. That's just obviously plain sexist.

As someone who is not trans I would not claim to be the best person to put forward a solution. However it is absolutely clear to me that single sex spaces are needed (at the absolute minimum you'd have to remove sex and religious belief from the list of protected characteristics under the EA 2010 in order to abandon single sex spaces). Therefore trans people need to be in their own single sex spaces, or a third space, or - potentially - third and fourth and fifth etc spaces (Male / Female / TW / TM / disabled / NB and other - do we need 6 sets of toilets?).

I do not think that third spaces help. They are less safe for women who are trans than women's spaces. They are unwanted by men who are trans and want to use women's spaces for validation. They are a burden on business. They confuse things when the absolute truth is that TWAM and therefore there is no reason for them not to be in men's spaces.

My solution would be to make it explicitly clear to trans people that they cannot be discriminated against for claiming to have a gender identity, but that beyond that they need to get on with being a sexed human being in a society that (basically) says "we're all the same apart from there are two sexes".

Why should that be the choice? IMHO even if women have no rights we require single sex spaces for the benefit of religious men who want to tell their wives where they can and cannot be. My question comes from a position that obviously single sex spaces are required. My question is all about whether third spaces are a solution to anything.

Your reasons are long
”1) It is tough enough on small businesses that they (rightfully) have to provide third spaces to people (disabled people) who literally cannot access single sex spaces. Giving them further obligations based on feelings not physical need is an unreasonable requirement. It is also tough on the taxpayer when government has to provide third spaces. I can imagine some small business owners becoming transphobic when they realise they have to spend thousands of pounds on building works for a "problem" that has never arisen in their workplace and which counters their legally held views that TW are men, end of.”

First, before we start, let’s just call them separate gender neutral spaces as “third spaces” are disabled toilets.

In regards to reason #1 above, the as of yet theoretical obligation a business may have to provide gender neutral toilets in addition to single sex toilets would not be based on “feelings” but based on “safeguarding, modesty and privacy”. Yes it is easy to predict transphobic reactions because there were similar ableist reactions when the laws requiring disabled access and toilets were passed. But transphobia isn’t a valid reason any more than ableism was.

I no longer care. This is something that men need to work out for themselves.

1. Transmen - do they use men's loos and are men OK with this?
2. Transwomen - do they use men's loos and are men OK with this?

The insistence on making it something for women to solve is the problem. I'm slinging it back to those who caused the issue in the first place.

My transman friend uses male loos. He (his terminology) has never had any issues.

Transwoman friend used to use women's loos but, way before I spoke up, had decided that this was a bad idea. He (his terminology) uses men's loos or does the full bladder dance until he gets home.

Neither of them think they have changed sex. Both have 'lived as the opposite sex' for decades and have been somewhat ousted from their decades long trans communities by TRAs. They both say they know many others in the same boat.

Which is why I don't believe there is an actual problem to solve!

“2) Some women with trans identities might feel obliged to use third spaces and thus find themselves at greater risk from men that they would have been had they just used women's spaces. The very existence of third spaces might increase the risk of harm to some women.”

Transmen/nonbinary women currently use both the mens and womens toilets. Having access to gender neutral toilets would be no more dangerous and perhaps even less dangerous as other users of those toilets are more likely to also be trans and so much less likely to bump into a transphobe who decides to aggressively confront you (or worse) on your choice of toilet.

@Artichokeleaves Disabled toilets were necessary because wheelchairs don;t cope well with steps or spaces narrower than the wheelchair. When the problem is mental not physical the answer can be one that is based on a change of mindset not a change of physical spaces?

This thread is nothing to do with single sex spaces which I support completely, it's about why I don;t think that third spaces are a solution to anything. That trans activists don't want them would seem to back up my opinion that third spaces are not needed, whilst saying nothing about trans activists desire to destroy single sex spaces.

3. Trans women don't get validation from third spaces so they are 100% unwanted by the main people who theoretically need them.

Whether this is true or not, you are ignoring transmen and nonbinary individuals. I’d also argue that the largest number of people who feel a need for gender neutral toilets are actually men and women who want to preserve single sex spaces. Should they be ignored too?

Discovereads · Today 14:01

First, before we start, let’s just call them separate gender neutral spaces as “third spaces” are disabled toilets.

In regards to reason #1 above, the as of yet theoretical obligation a business may have to provide gender neutral toilets in addition to single sex toilets would not be based on “feelings” but based on “safeguarding, modesty and privacy”. Yes it is easy to predict transphobic reactions because there were similar ableist reactions when the laws requiring disabled access and toilets were passed. But transphobia isn’t a valid reason any more than ableism was.

Let's call them mixed sex fourth spaces. Gender neutral is meaningless given the access to toilets is about sex not gender.

Can you see the difference between disabled facilities that are needed for physical reasons (disabled people physically not being able to access normal toilets) and men demanding special mixed sex toilets because they don't want to use men's toilets? What is to stop another group of men demanding their own special toilets? Maybe we'll soon have men identifying as "super-clean" and demanding spaces that are not accessible to ordinary men, only to special super-clean men who don't use urinals, sterilise toilet seats before and after using them, shower twice a day etc etc. Or maybe we could have special toilets for any man who claims to be slightly effeminate or sensitive and doesn't like being around other men who they perceive to be boisterous and noisy? Where should we draw the line?

Do furries require toilets with litter trays and if so should they be part of the mixed sex toilets or should they be another set of special toilets for truly special people?

Once upon a time I was willing to engage in discussion about possible solutions because I thought if we could offer an alternative we would be able to preserve women's spaces. I was pathetically naïve. Now I do not care, it s not the responsibility of women to solve the problem. I'm sure the urinary leash could be quite affirming for some as will having your needs ignored. welcome to "womanhood", enjoy!

There are many reasons for third space toilets (which are not the same thing as an accessible toilet for wheelchair users). For example, parents needing to accompany opposite sex children and older children/teens with additional needs is a common challenge that third spaces would meet. Plus if someone says that they feel uncomfortable and that their need for privacy and dignity cannot be met in a single sex space then having a non sexed alternative seems a reasonable and feasible adjustment.

I just expect that all groups get that consideration and care for their needs, and that female need for privacy, dignity and single sex space is as equally respected as necessary for their inclusion and access. There should be answers that work for everyone.

“4) We need to bring people together as much as possible - not divide them. Single sex spaces make huge amounts of sense for various reasons. Providing one accessible toilet makes sense (whereas making every single male or female toilet accessible makes much less sense as it would cost too much and take up too much room and would be a disproportionate way of providing for the disabled). But dividing people even further by creating more spaces - when the truth is we are all simply men or women at the end of the day - makes no sense.”

Why do we need to bring people together as much as possible for bodily functions? Normally in our culture we prefer to have as much privacy as possible when doing bodily functions. For example, many venues now have family toilets as there is a clear need for opposite sex parent/child groups to have their own spaces as well.

Gender neutral is meaningless given the access to toilets is about sex not gender.

No it’s not. Disabled isn’t a sex. Family isn’t a sex. Access to toilets isn’t just about sex.

Something you didn't mention is that some women 100% need single-sex provision, if they are to take their place in society. So whatever else is or isn't added in, we need to start with everywhere having one set of single-sex, female only (no squirming around, we all know what that means: AFAB for those who phrase it that way) toilets.

Anything less than this is deliberately cutting sections of the population out of being active in the world, & I think anyone proposing that should have to publicly justify that position.

“5) When a group ignores boundaries and the truth and courteous debate and instead seeks to bully and threaten and make people feel uncomfortable then one has a moral obligation to resist giving them an inch, for to give an inch is to reward their behaviour, which can only risk encouraging them and people like them. It reminds me of the slogan "we don't negotiate with terrorists".”

Sorry, but this is a petty immoral reason to refuse to negotiate and you’ve lost all credibility by comparing trans people to terrorists.

“6) The third spaces would risk becoming a target from those men who do genuinely hate trans people. Trans people are at risk from transphobic violence (I am not sure whether they are significantly at risk in the UK, I doubt it, but the risk is there) wherever they are. Walking down the street, in the appropriate single sex spacecs for their sexed bodies, in opposite sex spaces, in a pub, in a shopping centre - they could be attacked out of the blue anywhere. But to actually create a space which violent transphobes know to go to if they want a victim could create more harm than good.”

substitute transpeople for women in the above and you’ve written a “reason” to not have single sex toilets for women!

@Artichokeleaves It's the 'there's the desired conclusion now lets look for a convincing reason to get it' thing.

Thank you. I've been trying to come up with a phrase for this, having felt it since I first became aware of the general debate, years ago.

I am very comfortable with the idea of providing for people whose wheelchair does not fit into the normal single sex toilets. I am very comfortable with the idea of providing for people who have to accompany their opposite sex child.

I am uncomfortable with the idea than "ordinary" men and women use single sex spaces, and everyone else get's lumped in together even if their needs have NOTHING to do with each other.

@Discovereads /6

No, because single sex provision for women means that even violent men generally don't go into women's toilets, if they think they will be seen going in there - because any decent man will challenge them, to protect women. Also, women are entitled to challenge any man who's in a female single-sex toilet.

Anyone wanting to say (a) women are just as violent as men - no they're not & even if they were, a woman my size is less of a threat to me than a man a foot taller than me, or (b) I must be very unaware of what men do - I'm not, & I stopped using one set of remote toilets after a man hid in there under cover of darkness & murdered the first poor stranger who went in there.

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. My only real issue with it is that you give no consideration to those men (and I am sure that there must be some) who want to have single sex spaces away from women, but I have no problem with you not having the time or energy to fight that theoretical cause!

I think it is very very naive to assume that a woman who is trans would be safer in mixed sex toilets than in the women's toilets provided for her sex.

1. Infrastructure is costly so would be a pain to implement I agree
2. Are you suggesting women are in danger when needing to share facilities with transwomen? Using that logic would it not be the same if transwomen used female toilets?
3. The most likely reason why it's opposed but quite frankly that isn't a problem for women to deal with or have sex-based rights eradicated for
4. No idea what you are on about here, I don't feel emotionally divided with men because I don't want to piss next to them, it's not a bonding ritual
5. This isn't just an inch, it's a serious infringement on sex only spaces where women are in a vulnerable position
6. Do violent males (whichever way they identify) being able to enter single sex facilities to attack or harass women not bother you in the same way?