Anyone in the middle?

[piesforever]

All I see on here is GC rants. I am in the middle, I support trans people but do agree they shouldn't take part in gender specific sport, and there needs to be more caution in "changing gender" for sure, especially hormones and surgery for young people. I do agree some are troubled or young people, who are hating puberty or have had some trauma. Let's support them overall though, it must be horrible whatever the outcome. Anyone else feel a bit of sympathy to both "sides"? In fact, why are there sides, we need to find common ground and help each other!! Instead of being furious all the time. It's not healthy.

In a very similar way to how I accept that some people believe in God.

Is it similar? Ive been here off and on for years, and ive yet to see a post by a Christian man telling me he should be include in women spaces because of religion.

If gender was like a religion, and didn't try to hide sex, we wouldnt be having these conversations.

If local authorities and other public bodies were going to do a scoping exercise on the cost benefits of providing third and fourth spaces for people who believe they have a gender incongruent with their physical bodies, they'd need to start be doing it in places where the numbers of gendered people was representative of the national average.

So not in Brighton.

Unfortunately, the bags-up made in the most recent UK census will make it difficult to know where that is.

PS, the blithe confidence with which some people think these third and fourth spaces are a practical solution makes it very clear that they've never had to handle a public-money budget. Or a private-money business budget.

Brighton has a relatively low number of gendered people according to the census.

Relatively low = not average.

Yes, i was assuming Brighton was suggested because a high trans population. But its far from a representative of a typical city or town.

Low percentage of children and elderly, more students than average. The impact on those losing single sex spaced wouldnt be monitored well.

By "similar" I mean not accepting enforced belief and not accepting boundaries being crossed.
The examples I then gave were to illustrate what I meant but maybe that didn't quite work?

Brighton was just off the top of my head, particularly so as it seems to pride itself on being an "LGBT safe" place. The majority of that is LGB I assume but there are many who still put it all together.
There may be other places that are more representative of all the demographics that would help with a meaningful trial.

@DeanElderberry you're right on my part. I've never been in charge of a budget like that. But equally, there is a very real problem to be solved that impacts 51/52% of the population (women + trans people). Ultimately, solving it is going to come down to prioritisation. A small trial would at least help with that decision.

If trans men and female non binary people find themselves unsafe in trans spaces they are always welcome to use women's. Providing two additional spaces would clearly be disproportionate.

I think there comes a point where you have to say, "If your female body puts you at risk from both men and trans women, maybe just maybe you are a woman after all."

These third spaces don't currently exist in most places so I assume they are either comfortable using the men's or they are managing to use the women's. If the provision of third spaces to be shared with trans women still wasn't a good outcome for them, they could just continue to do whatever it is they are doing now.

The three categories suggested are Female, Male and mixed-sex. One would imagine the Mixed sex changing rooms, for example, would be packed out with all the men and women who claim they'd have no problem sharing with transpeople. This could work!!

I look forward to seeing Emma Watson, Laurie Penny and Jameela Jamil using these spaces.

By "similar" I mean not accepting enforced belief and not accepting boundaries being crossed.
The examples I then gave were to illustrate what I meant but maybe that didn't quite work?

But, by opening a discussion about finding common ground between women and men who want to ignore sex, we're doing more than just respecting different opinions. If gender isnt real or irrelevant, why waste time and money and risk the existence of single sex spaces to find solutions?

If a random man wants to believe hes a women, it doesnt effect me. If that man is on a feminist board wanting to force a special bond that means single sex spaces are threatened, it does effect me.

https://www.them.us/story/trans-man-noah-ruiz-was-just-trying-to-pee-he-was-assaulted-and-arrested

Cross posting from another thread.

I think people like Noah could benefit from third spaces.

Noah was told by the park owner to use the women's toilets because it would be safer for him. He was confronted in the toilets by a woman who mistook him for a biological man, and when he came out he was attacked by a group of men who beat him up and used homophobic and transphobic slurs.

I can understand why people like Noah might give women cause for concern in the women's toilets, especially if they can "pass" quite successfully.

But if he was beaten up by a group of men for using the women's toilets, let's not kid ourselves that he would have been safe using the men's toilets.

But, by opening a discussion about finding common ground between women and men who want to ignore sex...

Sex isn't being ignored. It's being recognised as the main principle behind sex-segrated spaces for men and women. Additional third spaces accommodate the difference in beliefs/viewpoints, covering those that have a gender identity and for whom it may be more important than sex.

But it's still accepting the flawed premise that something in your personality makes you legitimately different to others of your sex, which IMO means perpetuating the problem rather than solving it.

Frame third spaces as "for people who don't want single sex provisions" and that's fine. I'll probably use them myself from time to time.

Frame them as "for people who can't use the provisions of their sex" and that is a very different and I think ultimately wrong-direction move, because it's baking in the belief that sex in our society is a la carte not fixed menu. IMO the only answer to "some people of sex X are not what we typically expect of sex X" should be "ok, then we need to think differently about sex X!"

I was thinking today...

Imagine we decoupled this whole thing from sex and we simply had "space for people who identify as not a threat to others" and "space for people who identify as potentially a threat to others".

You can see the flaws immediately - what's stopping the "potentially a threat to" people using the "not a threat" space?

But Aha! To stop that, we'll say the Not a Threat people have to wear a certain hat! No one will willingly choose to wear that hat just to use the safer space or have unbarriered access to the unthreatening group!

Ludicrous right? Yet that is exactly what the whole third spaces thing boils down to.

I would frame it as "male", "female" and "gender neutral", quite simply.

And have a sign on the door saying, "These facilities are for people born female. If you were born male please use the male facilities to your left or the gender neutral facilities immediately behind you. Thank you for your cooperation."

@MargotBamborough

Would you accept a sign saying:

"These facilities are for people born female. If you were not born female please use the male facilities to your left or the gender neutral facilities immediately behind you. Thank you for your cooperation."

I don't see why it helps women to forcibly label anyone non female as "male" if a third option (one that does not grant access to female spaces) is available.

Maybe some posters don't quite appreciate just how upsetting the idea of being "male" or a "man" is to some trans people (including me).

Perhaps that's what you should work on?

Exactly that.

Or the third space could be named "unisex/gender-neutral".

And yes, some people may choose to use the third space. I can't quite imagine Emma Watson et Al going in to the David Lloyd (or similar) version if they got put in but it's certainly possible. Why not?

I picked David Lloyd deliberately as I remember one of the understandable pushbacks levelled at Kirsty Allsop when she said she didn't mind sharing toilet facilities with transwomen was that she probably never went anywhere where it mattered. It's very possible that she might go to David Lloyd. If she did, she might be surprised that the current policy is to let transwomen in to women's changing rooms:

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1717278477395591583?t=eCSqcCCnM_Ux3WUKKdO6mw&s=19

I suspect that she and many other Be Kinders would also discover a preference for single sex spaces. Meanwhile, a trial on third spaces would draw out what had worked and what hadn't.

Can you suggest some alternative wording for the sign which makes it clear to everyone, including trans people, whether they are allowed in the women's toilets or not?

That third paragraph is absolute word salad. It's literally the only salient point of the letter and I cannot work out what it is they think they are saying.

@MargotBamborough
I think my wording works because it says "not born female" - does that cover everyone you do not want to allow into the women's toilets?

Oh apologies, I didn't see your alternative wording.

Yes, that wording would be clear to me.

Being male is a factual descriptor. There is zero judgement in it. I hate to sound harsh but finding a descriptor upsetting is your problem, not a reason for literally everyone else to change their vocabulary.

I can see why certain terms are upsetting eg "medically obese", and could be ameliorated by using something more neutral (like a specific weight range) but I think male is the clearest and most neutral term already (compared to eg "born with penis" or "XY").

Imagine we decoupled this whole thing from sex and we simply had "space for people who identify as not a threat to others" and "space for people who identify as potentially a threat to others".

You can see the flaws immediately - what's stopping the "potentially a threat to" people using the "not a threat" space?

But Aha! To stop that, we'll say the Not a Threat people have to wear a certain hat! No one will willingly choose to wear that hat just to use the safer space or have unbarriered access to the unthreatening group!

Ludicrous right? Yet that is exactly what the whole third spaces thing boils down to.

Yes, indeed.

Maybe some posters don't quite appreciate just how upsetting the idea of being "male" or a "man" is to some trans people (including me).

You still think thr intention of gender ideology is to co exist with recognising sex, bonfire?