Single sex spaces

[piloswi]

I’m confused with single sex spaces and trans people and what people want.

My understanding is everyone must use the single sex space of their biological sex (I might be wrong). This is only spoken about in terms of trans women now having to use men’s toilets, etc. But this means trans men must use women’s toilets. So someone who looks like a man but biologically isn’t but mostly (imo) you can’t really tell with trans men whereas you often can with trans women.

Is this what the majority want? Surely if people are worried about ‘predatory men’ pretending to be a trans woman to use single sex spaces then they could equally claim to be a trans man as you can’t really ask them to prove it can you?

I guess I’m just wondering if I’m missing the point the point? Are the majority happy with this? I’ve seen posts of people being very happy with the ruling but only have spoken about trans women.

I don’t want this to be a trans bashing thread. Just would like to know what people would like to see as their ideal for single sex spaces while still respecting people

So, you are leveraging female bodies for the acceptance of male people to be able to call the cavities inserted into their groin 'vaginas'?

I can keep this up as long as you can.

Can you please state the 'function' of a cavity that has been inserted into a male body?

In this context, the difference between 'purpose' and 'function' is nothing but sophistry, isn't it? Someone has taken offence where none was intended, and is determined to be justified in doing so.

If a vagina exists there cannot be ‘no reproductive organs’. It is one, and has several very important roles in sexual reproduction.

Please tell me exactly what ‘treatments’ are needed for ‘maintaining’ a vagina which is not attached to a cervix which are not required for ‘maintaining’ any other vagina.

edit: spag

I think you are being a bit stupid and reductive. Women’s bodies can do amazing things, including giving birth.

But that doesn’t place a limitation on what women can do with their lives. Neither does it mean that women have to give birth in order to be women. Or that all women will be able to, or want to.

But the purpose of a vagina in a human female is to act as the birth canal. It is just what it is. Same as in loads of other mammals.

And sadly some women are born with some genital abnormalities, just as other women are born with other abnormalities. This doesn’t mean that the vagina’s purpose is somehow not something we can identify. It’s stupid to pretend it is.

The term fuck hole on this thread is being used for the cavity constructed on a man as part of “sex change” surgery. As that is its only possible purpose.

So why was it such an unserious question?

And yet, it is only by someone claiming that male people with cavities inserted into their groin have 'vaginas' that someone is reducing female body parts to 'fuckholes'.

You're the only one calling that identical anatomy and treatment a fuckholes because they don't have this other "purpose" that vaginas have which you still won't describe?

Of course it is.

Its a dishonest conversation.

The purpose of anything faulty is still the same as its none faulty mates. It just is faulty.

Something that mimics is something that mimics.

Its not comparable to the faulty thing, just because neither can do the thing that the non-faulty thing can do.

This is not offensive.

So women born with blind vaginas and no cervix/uterus have what exactly? What do they have to call them? They have to use dialators.

Here you go:

Some of the context that you seem to have ignored:

Today 15:54

It is incredible that some people have been led to believe that calling a blind cavity surgically inserted into a male groin is in any way a ‘vagina’.

That is seriously misogynistic. It dismisses the functions of a vagina except for one. It reduces a vagina to a fuckable hole.

Imagine posting supporting that vaginas are just fuckable holes on a feminist board.

Today 15:59

Do you understand for instance how misogynistic it is to call a cavity inserted into male person’s groin a vagina when it only serves the purpose of being or resembling a fuckhole ? You are posting on a feminist board, do you think you can address the misogynistic view you just posted?

Today 16:12

What is the purpose of this inserted cavity again?

There is NO purpose other than to be a fuckhole or to represent a fuckhole if it is even usable. Do you understand what we are saying? Or are you programmed to believe in falsehoods.

Just because a female person might have a similar process doesn’t make it a ‘vagina’ when inserted into male body. A female person’s reconstructive surgery is just that, replacing a body part. Not creating a false one. A female reconstruction has other body mechanisms to support it including a vulva and a cervix and a uterus etc.

And then you chime in with your personal meaning of purpose vs function. I can only assume you have missed the 'functional' aspect to the meaning of purpose and focused only on the 'determination' meaning of the word. Which is dishonest.

The legislation certainly does not say that everyone must use the facilities of their biological sex.

In general, equality means that everyone should be treated equally and in most circumstances, where there's no consequences to privacy, decency, safety and wellbeing triggering the below exceptions, men and women should be treated the same so there should be no difference in how a trans person is treated pre- and post- transition because there are no differences between how men and women are treated, with certain exceptions which are carefully specified

-It says that when it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, it is reasonable for single sex facilities to exist, and that when this happens the definition is by biology not by gender identity.
-It is specific that male people who have altered their bodies to look more female do not count as female for the purposes of there being a single sex space. There is no requirement that they must therefore use the male facilities though. There should be appropriate unisex facilities available.
-it is also specific that if the legitimate aim for which a single-sex space has been created would be adversely impacted by female people who have altered their bodies to look convincingly male, then it is also appropriate for those people to also be excluded from a female single-sex space. This wouldn't affect all transmen, the majority of whom look like butch lesbians and are as obviously female as Kate/Bob in Blackadder, but those who have taken a lot of testosterone and steroids might also have to use unisex facilities.
-The upshot is that not enough places have enough unisex facilities to provide reasonable accessibility to trans people and that needs to be fixed urgently. Unisex facilities cannot be achieved by putting a "unisex" label on a door that was previously used for single sex if that room contains cubicles that are not fully enclosed. Unisex facilities must be individual rooms that are fully enclosed with no gaps, and in most cases the single sex option should still exist - the exception being that small businesses that currently only have room for 2 individual toilets and label one as "male" and one as "female" can convert both to being unisex (fully enclosed) without reducing access for anyone or reducing anyone's privacy, dignity or safety.
-most people only spend a very very small percentage of their lives needing to do things that require the existence of single sex facilities. It doesn't need to be a big deal so long as everyone has access to an option they are allowed to use.

This was always the law. There has been no new legislation. Stonewalls and their allies lied and lied about this for years to make everyone pretend the law had changed to accommodate their preferrences and it has taken till now to force this into the light.

Having single sex spaces for women to use when in a state of undress or otherwise vulnerable is absolutely a legitimate reason. It's weird that anyone queries this unless they are shockingly naive or are trying to reduce the protection that women have when they are vulnerable for their own malevolent reasons.

Except a function doesn't place any limitations on women. A purpose in the way you describe, absolutely can and has. The only possible function of a blind vagina on a biological female would be this same crude "purpose" then?

What for? Why do you think a vagina which is not attached to a cervix needs a dilator?

You said it was inherently misogynistic to call a surgically created blind vagina a vagina, and reduced it to a fuckhole with NO other purpose so I'm asking you what the "purpose" of a vagina is in a way that isn't misogynistic? And what is this identical anatomy called on biological females given apparently not serving this purpose makes it a fuck hole?

I think we all know what for, which is why I don't think it's very nice to describe those women's anatomy as crudely as a "fuckhole" because it's surgical and doesn't have this mythical extra purpose

So, Yelleryeller

Have you worked out that you have just attempted to use the wrong definition of 'purpose' when you have just attempted to shame my use of the word? You have chosen to give it only the determination meaning ie something like. 'an intention or aim; a reason for doing something or for allowing something to happen' which I fail to see how it is relevant when discussing a body part and it's 'function'.

In fact, the Oxford dictionary said this:

aim or function of something; the thing that something is supposed to achieve

Gosh... the 'function of something'! Blimey.... language eh.

A vagina is part of the female reproductive system.

Kindly, can you read? It's used in relation to function when it's supposed not just a function. So if a women's vagina can't serve your undescribed purpose because it can't function towards that, is it still a fuckhole because it's misogynistic for them to call it a vagina?

It's absolutely not when a female is born without a uterus,vagina or ovaries. Is it inherently misogynistic for them to call it a vagina instead of a fuckhole?

I still think you are bring stupid and reductive.

We are not talking about the woman’s purpose.

We are talking about the purpose of any abstract body part, be it hands, eyes, heart, lungs or vagina.

In the context of a body part, there’s no meaningful difference between the word “function” and “purpose”.

My vagina doesn’t go round wondering what its “purpose in life” is in the philosophical sense. It’s not a person.

You seem to have somehow equated discussing the vagina’s function/purpose (which is actually for sex and as birth canal, I don’t know what else it’s for?) with saying that this must mean this is also the women’s purpose in life.

Which is a very false equivalence and rather a stupid reductive leap of logic.

Well.... isn't it a pity that the post it was directly answering which was about male body parts has been deleted.

Keeping trying to twist what was said out of the context that it was said in.

Again, I was very specific that it was in reply only to the labelling of a male person's surgically added cavity as a vagina.

"And what is this identical anatomy called on biological females given apparently not serving this purpose makes it a fuck hole?"

I am happy to keep repeating it. As can be read in my previous posts, if a female person has a vagina reconstruction, it is a vagina reconstruction.

Can you please state the 'function' of a cavity that has been inserted into a male body?

No, because a woman’s vagina is a vagina, a key part of the female reproductive system. A man can’t have one because he isn’t female and therefore has a male reproductive system (even if a non functional one) so he can only have an imitation one.

Reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that some people think the purpose of your arse is to talk out of it.

Kindly, can you read?

You are the one who is choosing to use a determinative meaning for purpose when there is a very clear usage of the word as being connected to 'function'.

You are the one here who is being dishonest.

Anyone who makes a post like the OP in this thread is clearly unfamiliar with actual, real life transmen!

To use a famous example, would anyone here be intimidated by the world’s most famous transman, Elliot Page? Or would the obviously female stature (and global female violence/sex crime statistics) assuage any fears?

Vaginas which aren’t attached to cervixes don’t need dilatation any more than vaginas with cervixes do. They’re not just tubes of flesh.

You just don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, do you? You’ve absolutely no idea about female anatomy at all. You’re just another standard issue MRA 🙄

I think it's quite simple to be cautious of how we talk about women's bodies in the context we live in where women's bodies are evermore politicised, and assigning purpose to them is a pretty simple one. Especially if we're talking about things being inherently misogynistic and then discussing the anatomy that some biologically females have in really horribly crude terms.