Am I alone in NOT wanting a great flourishing of third spaces but to prefer that the definition of what being a man is widens...

[loveyouradvice]

Just that really

I remember when this whole madness started and various bearded men in skirts in women's refuges were so clear that women needed to expand their definition of women to include them....

I've always thought men need to become more involved, even just thinking about it and that the solution is for men to expand their concept of what being a man is....

But then I'm an old-fashioned feminist who has always seen performing gender-roles as an issue!!

Well, the username checks out....

Someone up thread was proposing unisex toilets AGAIN. Look, most women don’t want to sit on a seat covered in a man’s urine, or to clean it first with loo paper and no gloves. Is that so hard to understand? Nor do I want to have to check whether perverted men have put cameras in place. Jeez, it’s still all about the trans to some! Women, be kind!

As a bloke I asked my mates if any of them would have a problem with transwomen using the mens toilets/changing rooms. None of them objected. They would have a problem with anyone giving them a hard time and all said they would intervene in such a situation. OK it was a survey of 5 blokes but I think it indicative of how society has changed.

I've seen those burly dames with guns and beards.

It's always a shock the first few seconds but their height, hands and especially their hips give it away.

They'll be challenged. They'll survive. They gave themselves "the look". Now they have to live with it - and the kindness of other women can make this happen. Eventually.

As for the males? Not my circus...

Well quite. Are they going to refuse screening for female cancers because they think they are men and its too upsetting to be reminded that they have a womb, breast tissue, ovaries and a cervix? If so, they will be more likely to die from those cancers. They have made the decision, they will have to accept that they may be living as a man, but they are physiologically still women.

Don’t care. I’d much rather a bearded transmaken than a man in a mini and fishnets.

Several men on LinkedIn are leading with the suggestion that men need to become more inclusive. I think that is a great addition to the suggestion of third spaces. It leaves much less space for activists to say there is nowhere for these men to go.

And yet the opposite is pushed and happens. It shouldn’t. Single sex for women and whatever men want to work out for their sex class.

Exactly

missmollygreen - what is your problem with unisex in the mens loo when they are biological men who seem to want to do nothing but pee!

Ultimately that would be the ideal, but in the shorter to mid term 'third spaces' would solve a very immediate and pragmatic problem.

Much as this is an entertaining thought, I recently did a faceapp filter to add a beard on myself (a woman) and with a beard I looked exactly like Garron Noone. I'm also 6ft tall and fairly broad. I look nothing like a man but if I had a beard and top surgery I am pretty convinced you'd not tell I was female. I am not sure why lots of people are convinced you can always tell if someone is trans.

I'd like to see both, actually. I think in larger establishments and in bigger gyms etc I think a multi-purpose third space that'd suit a bunch of additional needs (not just for trans people) I think would be just generally really beneficial.

I don't think most men would give us shit in the male spaces anyway, toilets at least would probably be fine they'd maybe do a double take but men just get in and get out generally. But I do think the trans community should be working on some kind of further acceptance aimed towards males, not sure what that would look like though. That'd be a better road though, than what's happening out there right now 🙄

I want the whole concept of gender to die out. It’s so regressive.

I do suspect it might. Best case scenario, there is a flourishing of third spaces in anticipation of huge trans demand, and then in a generation's time, what we're effectively left with is a plentiful supply of disabled loos, when gender goes out of fashion.

My understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is that a transman who sufficiently passed as male could also be legally excluded from women-only spaces on the grounds of their appearance.

I suspect after the fuss has died down, what will happen is that people who 'pass' and are just popping into the loos to pee and leave will be fine ( although I do agree I would prefer third spaces). What will be less likely is intimidation of women in women only spaces. They will not be allowed to pee standing up with their arse showing, walk around female changing rooms naked ( as both Lia Thomas and Beth Upton have been accused of doing-Thomas with an erection), chase teenage girls down the street because they feel threatened by a middle aged man ( Eddie Izzard) in the toilets with them, will not be taking women's spaces in rape crisis centres or on boards where there is a stipulation that they are reserved for women and will not be allowed to intimidate Lesbians out of their spaces by insisting same sex attraction is same gender attraction. It also puts the power back into the hands of women. If they don't feel intimidated by the person in their loos, the majority will live and let live for a minute or two, but as soon as any intimidating behaviour happens we have the law behind us and can get these people thrown out. This will be back to the original situation where transwomen were allowed into women's loos by consent of women. The men's rights activists of the trans movement get off on intimidating women. Hopefully once they can't do that anymore, they will get bored.

This is probably one of the few topics where I think I lean towards disagreeing with the MN prevailling opinion.
Give them third spaces if they want them. Third spaces add to the undermining of their already poor arguments "But I've got nowhere to pee", "Yes you do we made these special spaces just for you".
I can see pros and cons but I lean towards third spaces.
cons - expense and burden of creating and maintaining them, but this is a small price to pay in my opinion to restore the dignity of single sex spaces for women.

pros - Women get single sex spaces, and more importantly enforcement of single sex spaces back. Places like gyms and sports venues can enforce single sex spaces more easily in the face of trans friction when there's third spaces.

Some women will want to show solidary with trans women by using those third spaces. Let them, they will serve a useful purpose, they will provide the female proximity supply the trans women need. Let these women meet the needs of the males that they prioritise over females. Let these women bear the risk that they would otherwise force upon all women. If there are cosequences of this, remember the line these women have used in the past "That never happens". Let the handmaidens tend their own utopia.

Third spaces cannot happen quickly enough for me.

I think the best solution would be different for different settings.

For toilets, either a gender neutral space or the cubicles from the men's open first and are gender neutral, with the urinals through a men only door (could reduce female queues as well, so I'd do this in places where there are more women but equal toilet provision, like theatres).

Changing rooms should be single sex with cubicles inside for people who want some more privacy (like religious women or men who've had breasts added).

For rape crisis and support services, I think that there should/could be LGBTQ+ services. The needs and experiences align more closely than with those of women.

The SC judgement allows there to be actual clarity in discussing these things, rather than getting into the "but they are women," loop. So now we can come to sensible, considered solutions.

I think that Trans women just have to accept that they are a sub set of men and not women. Men should be more accepting of them and not worry if they are sharing toilets with them. Maybe because men have not been so accepting, the problem has become a woman’s one.
I have no problems with sharing the women’s toilets with trans men, ie biological females.

But realistically speaking, where are these 'third' actually fourth spaces going to be magicked up from?

The as-recently-as-2024 updated Uk building regs state that the following are required:

• non-residential buildings to have separate single-sex toilets, with single-sex shared or individual hand-washing facilities
• universal toilets can [I think they mean 'may'?] be provided in addition to single-sex provision where space allows; and
• where there is insufficient space to provide single-sex toilets, fully enclosed universal toilets should be provided.

and elsewhere the building regs also cover accessible toilets for disabled people.

Building regs could be changed to make universal toilets a requirement rather than an option, as they are currently, but that will take time too, and is not a given.

Look at any existing non-residential building and ask yourself - in reality, where is that fourth space, the 'universal toilet' in addition to the required separate-sex toilets, going to be located? How is it going to be financed? And when you have satisfactorily answered those two questions, remind yourself of how long it takes to get planning permission, to raise finances, to complete a building projects, and then tell me how 'third spaces' are either immediate or pragmatic.

Or - and this is the key issue - even justifiable, as a matter of principle rather than pragmatism.

@MarieDeGournay
Or - and this is the key issue - even justifiable, as a matter of principle rather than pragmatism.

I agree completely that as a matter of principal this problem shouldn't even exist, but it does. You are correct I am arguing completely out of pragmatism, and I see that as the best solution.
Biological sex is the reason a large amount of the life on earth exists. Even plants can be biologically sexed, either as the whole plant, or flowers on the plant. That biological sex is responsible for the procreation of most life on Earth doesn't matter two hoots to the gender borg. A ruling from a court isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to people for who biological reality doesn't exist. Their behaviour is unhinged and often violent. These are not people that can be reasoned with. I'll take any pragmatic solution that restores safety and dignity to women even if it comes at monetary expense to society.
You are correct that on principal none of this should be necessary. We should not have our political leaders dither over basic facts and pander to the mentally disjoined, but we do. That's where we find ourselves. Give women their dignity and same sex spaces back.

It is worth considering the origins of the claim that transwomen are isolated / threatened / rejected in male spaces...

this doesn't appear to be a claim with any credible or evidential argument - it is a claim being put forward as a justification for men (transwomen) to be allowed access to women's spaces.

If the claim is not credible / has no evidence-based origin, then the answer is simple - men use male spaces - so there is a simple answer to the question 'where does a transwoman pee' - answer: with ll the other men in the gents.

there are many minorities who might claim to have had a hard time - due to disabilities / race / sexual orientation / etc. however we don't build third / fourth / fifth / etc. spaces for them - to have loos or changing rooms for every minority becomes silly very quickly - so why would you for transwomen?

To build separate loos for transwomen would be to go against the SC ruling - loos are divided on a sex basis and the SC ruling has confirmed the biological facts we all knew (and which most of us acknowledged) - that there are only two sexes: male / female.

disabled loos / family rooms / loos with changing facilities for babies are not built to deal with minorities who identify differently, but because there are groups who have different physical needs - disabled people might need the frame around the loo / bigger door handles / different taps / alarm call buttons / etc. families might find it easier to have the space needed when you take small children into the loo with you, those with babies need a changing table... a transwoman / transman has no physical needs as a result of their decision to 'transition' outside the normal needs of those sharing their biological sex.

there is no need to have 'third-spaces' to deal with any of this - we already have sufficient facilities to meet the needs of our population, and there is no need to change the definition of a man (which is sex based) - the societal understanding of what a man is has always been fluid (from high heels and makeup in regency times to occasionally wearing a dress in modern times) none of this changes what a man is - and how a man chooses to appear is up to them, there are no specific boundaries...

so, there is no need for change, and we need to remember the calls for change are just another cry for validation from those who inaccurately believe that a man can become a woman.

I think that if they are uncomfortable using toilets of their biological sex they should use the accessible toilets because it's such a small increase in use, the practical effect will be negligible. I understand that on principle it seems wrong, but it also causes the least inconvenice to the least people.

Before I get shouted down in flames, can I explain my reasoning:

• in the last census there were 262,000 people who said they were trans (0.5% of the population). Disability Rights UK in their statement on the SC Ruling said that half of Trans people were disabled. So for figures sake, they can use the accessible toilets as disabled people. That gives a potential 131,000 additional users if the remaining teams population use them.
• Compare that to the approx 2 million children under 2, whose parents will regularly use the same toilets for baby changing.
• There are around 16 million disabled people in the UK. Not all will need an accessible loo, but there are others who aren't technically disabled who will (pregnant women with mobility issues, people with injuries/casts etc). The same will apply for the Trans disabled population. So for arguments sake let's assume they all use the accessible loo.
• if non disabled trans users used the accessible toilets they'd make up 0.72% of users. Less than a percent.
• if a trans person develops significant anxiety about outing themselves by going into their biological toilet, it affects their ability to go out, to keep healthy and eat/drink etc, then it would surely be counted as an invisible disability anyway, in the same way as anyone else with toilet anxiety
• we don't question whether someone's disabilities are significant enough to use the accessible loo, so maybe we shouldn't question whether someone's dysphoria is significant enough for it to be an invisible disability?

Given accessible toilets are meant to be for those that need them, not just disabled users, I think an increase in 0.72% would have a negligible effect on the disabled community, would avoid the need for third spaces and would remove the need for people to 'out themselves'.

I have a daughter that (with good reason) uses the accessible loos. I don't want to see a big unnecessary increase in use. 0.72% is tiny.

You only need one 'gender neutral' toilet alongside the single sex blocks. This has already ben implemented by sensible people in charge of new builds in recent times. See the Tung Auditorium in Liverpool.