Female yes safe no

[autienotnaughty]

So I believe that we all have the right to identify however we choose regardless of our gender at birth.
But
I also think that women have the right to be safe and due to the risk to women that men pose I feel women do need safe spaces and also their own space in sports otherwise they risk losing their identity in sport. So to me the answer is womens spaces, gender neutral spaces and mens spaces. Gender neutral encompasses male, female, trans male, trans female, gender neutral, pan gender, non binary etc.

The way I see it is we live in an inclusive society that recognises peoples right to live their life as they choose but the need for women safety is paramount.

I don't care who or why or which or what the Akond of Swat thinks he is. He can think what he likes. But what he is, is male, so he stays out of women's spaces.

There is zero evidence that male TW are in anyway 'unsafe' in male toilets - none, nothing, nada, nil, zilch - that is just emotional blackmail and flat out propaganda.

Let's just put that into perspective it means TW, who are male, saying that they are using women as human shields against other males, does that sound fair, reasonable and equitable to anyone? Under self-id those males the TW are apparently so afraid of could just self-id their way into the same space anyway. It's just risible bollocks and unbelievable that so many, particularly women, have been gaslighted and brainwashed into believing this utter codswallop.

Many of the males of my acquaintance have indeed shared toilet facilities with TW and guess what - nothing happened, no-one batted a fucking eyelid.

TW want to use female spaces for their own selfish purposes - validation, power and control it has fuck all to do with them being safe.

Third spaces are an unacceptable solution to trans-identified males as they want access to female spaces.

Wanting to be where females are naked and/or vulnerable is a feature, not a bug, of transgender identity.

Yep.

I think unfortunately male and female trans people feel unsafe using male toilets but agree that doesn't mean the solution is womens toilets.

So the solution is to let men use women's toilets, despite women saying this makes THEM feel unsafe?

Realise you aren't saying this op. Kist outlining how ridiculous the argument is!

You are right we need a third space for people who want to use mixed sex toilets.

It's not like this hasn't been pointed out though is it?

Re whether TW are/feel safe in men's toilets: I think it's fair to suggest that TW presenting as TW may well invite some hassle in the men's. As with when (perceived) gay men are subject to homophobia, all of it is nasty and it must often be impossible to guess what's 'just' a rude comment vs what is going to escalate to violence.

None of which means we should allow them into women's toilets (changing rooms, prisons, shelters etc).

So I believe that we all have the right to identify however we choose

Op, what do you mean by "identify as"? As I understand it this usually means "I say I am, even though I'm actually not"

regardless of our gender at birth.

How are you defining "gender at birth"? Are you using gender to mean sex? By saying "at birth" you imply it can be different at other points during the person's life -is that how you mean it?

But I also think that women have the right to be safe and due to the risk to women that men pose I feel women do need safe spaces and also their own space in sports otherwise they risk losing their identity in sport.

For the most prt I heartily agree, but only if by "women" you mean adult female humans and by "men" you mean adult male humans. I don't think it's our identity in sport that we will lose though, it's our spot on the team, on the podium and in the changing room.

So to me the answer is womens spaces, gender neutral spaces and mens spaces. Gender neutral encompasses male, female, trans male, trans female, gender neutral, pan gender, non binary etc.

As others have said here and on the duplicate posts, many women have suggested this and been shut down because for those wanting in to female spaces (the people who shouldn't be there) it's not actually about safety. It's about being in spaces designated for women and how good that makes them feel. If we had third spaces, those people wouldn't use them, they want to be in with us. If we then all decided to use the empty third spaces, they might then follow. And we'd be at square one, sharing spaces with people who aren't women.

The way I see it is we live in an inclusive society

Depends what you mean by "inclusive". We live in a society that tries its hardest to be inclusive of non-women in women's sapces because that's what some non-women want. Those spaces then become exclusive of women with trauma, fear of male violence and those who follow orthodox religions.

that recognises peoples right to live their life as they choose

If the people doing the choosing are male and the choice is to enter female spaces

but the need for women safety is paramount.

Women's safey isn't paramount though, and that's why we've ended up in this mess.

No that why I raised the point of gender neutral spaces. I think all agree womens safety trumps gender choice.

@JacquelinePot
I suppose trans people are identifying as something different to what they were. That's the purpose of transition.

The at birth thing is tricky to word because I disagree that babies are assigned a gender. They are born a gender. But some people grow up and for whatever reason (hormonal levels , life experience etc) and feel more compatible with a different gender, or no gender.

The identity in sport I meant due to the fact that women have fought hard ford recognition in sport and are massively underpaid/recognised comparatively to men. So if we switched for example to skill based system and all competed together it's likely we would lose our place in sport. But agree changing rooms etc a factor too.

Another thing is when we think about trans people there's a massive spectrum within that. So for example a person who has felt the wrong gender for years, attended psychiatric sessions, undergone hormones changes and had life changing surgery to transition from man to women. In my eyes that person is different to some one who lived as a man then one day started dressing in typically feminine clothes and referring to themselves as a women. Is there a difference, is one more valid than the other?

@JacquelinePot I couldn't see the multiple posts , it was a mn glitch. I wrote a post, tried to post it. It wouldn't post so I cancelled it. When I got home I wrote this post and it posted. Then everyone informed I'd created many posts. I am sorry, this was my first post on this board. I was easing my self in!!

MN can be glitchy, welcome!

I think there's an awful lot for you to unpack, and work through your understanding of this issue. My advice is to question everything, interrogate every idea to understand why you believe xyz.

So for example a person who has felt the wrong gender for years, attended psychiatric sessions, undergone hormones changes and had life changing surgery to transition from man to women.

Many feminists believe gender to be an external set of expectations and stereotypes which society places on us, and which set gets applied to you is determined by your sex. If you feel like the stereotypes applied to you don't work for you, are you trans?

Is trans something you do or something you are? You talk about dress, hormones and surgery so I think you think it's something you do.

If a man wears dresses, is he trans? If he wants to wear dresses but is afraid of the reaction he will get from friends and family so decides not to wear dresses, is he still trans? You talk of a spectrum which seems to indicate that the greater efforts one makes towards looking like the opposite sex, the more valid (to use the parlance of the day) the transness is. Activists consider that to be deeply transphobic. The push is for us all to accept that people are who they say they are. You have to do precisely zero to be trans, other than say "I am trans".

You ask a really good question: Is there a difference, [re low vs high effort to change their appearance] is one more valid than the other?

I think it demonstrates a different level of commitment to the pretence that one is the opposite sex, but it it doesn't mean that those making more effort have changed sex, that their efforts are convincing to other people or that they should be allowed to access opposite sex spaces.

Why are we are saying 'biological male' and 'biological female'. It's like using 'cis'. There really isn't any other type of female. Ie no such thing as 'non-biological female'. I think we've been unwittingly sucked in to creating different categories of female

Yes I know a GRC can alter your legal sex but it's a work of legal fiction . A male who has a GRC? Let him be called just that.

The at birth thing is tricky to word because I disagree that babies are assigned a gender. They are born a gender. But some people grow up and for whatever reason (hormonal levels , life experience etc) and feel more compatible with a different gender, or no gender.

You are conflating sex and gender. Babies totally are assigned a gender at birth, once their sex is observed. Even before birth, if their sex is observed via ultrasound or CVS etc.

Gender is the stereotypes imposed upon each sex.

When parents-to-be learn the sex of the foetus and then decorate the nursery in dainty pink for their daughter, or bouncy blue for their son, they have assigned their child a gender.

When a baby girl is dressed in a pink babygro and headband, feminine gender stereotypes have been imposed upon her. She has been assigned a feminine gender.

Studies have shown that babies dressed in pink or blue are treated differently by people who do not know the babies' sex, regardless of the babies' actual sex. Babies dressed in pink tend to be cradled facing inwards, whereas babies dressed in blue tend to be held facing outwards and are more likely to be bounced. Similarly for babies dressed in neutral white, when the subject holding then has been told the baby has a statically feminine or masculine name.

Gender is assigned based upon observed sex.

Is it any wonder that some people rebel?

Argh. Lost a convoluted sentence typing on my phone.

Gender is assigned based upon observed sex. If you can deceive the observer sufficiently (eg in the case of the infants) or if an individual of the one sex performs the gender stereotypes of the opposite sex, then you can observe how illogical gender is.

Any public place should be designed according to scientific, objective reality of male and female. It's the only fair and unbiased way.

Third spaces are considered segregation and discriminatory whenever I have suggested them on Twitter.

Gender is assigned based upon observed sex.

Only if people choose to go along with the stereotypes; many do not.

Has a parent 'assigned' a girl a 'male' gender if they never dress her in pink? Maybe it's a 'statement', but on the other hand, maybe they don't like pink, or maybe all the pink clothes were out of stock, or maybe they didn't even think about it. What about if she wears pink on Mondays, blue on Tuesdays and orange on Wednesdays?

Gender is a set of assumptions, stereotypes and in some cases, deliberately pulling the wool.

Sex, on the other hand, is real, undeniable and unchanging.

Dressing a girl in pink is an obvious and overt application of gender stereotypes.

Even if parents consciously try to avoid imposing gender stereotypes upon their children, society still does so.

What about the intangible gender stereotypes, such as about raised voices? A woman raises her voice: strident, hysterical, shrieking. A man raises his voice: loud, angry, authoritative.

Happy with 3rd spaces - it would be v helpful for me as my son is getting to the age where he should be using men’s toilets but is a bit immature and wants to be accompanied. Happy with 1 or 2 additional categories in sport.

The thing is, anyone can challenge gender stereotypes - men can wear dresses, and do house work, a woman can marry a woman and play football... The list is endless. It's all allowed and accepted.. Literally the only things being argued for by TRA is the ability of men to access spaces where women and girls are vulnerable, being allowed to win positions and competitions reserved for females and to bring their sexual fetishes to work. Says it all really.

Forgot to add that they're also advocating for the mutilation of, mainly, young women.

It just seems so simple doesn't it?

My old workplace had 3 toilets for this reason and it worked just fine.

So to me the answer is womens spaces, gender neutral spaces and mens spaces

I think your being naive here.
What will actually happen is (I've said this before under a different username)
women will use the space as will opposite sex carers and those who dont care who they share with.
Over a pretty short space of time, perverts will figure out that they can perve, women will find this unacceptable, women will all use the ladies, so will transwomen and the men will colonise the third space. This gives men yet more spaces to call their own and women will still have to share with transwomen. A lot of money and time wasted to just give men a further space.

Hows about we are completely fair and males however they identify use Male spaces, women, however they identify use womens spaces.