Women's 'Private Spaces'

[Howseitgoin]

Clearly private spaces for women are considered a necessity by many due to a propensity for male sexual violence. Given this threat is much greater by orders of magnitude in the work place as opposed to public bathrooms, isn't it inconsistent not to demand private spaces there as well?
Thoughts?

Evidently all cultures and individuals have differences in how and when sexes are separated for everyone privacy and dignity. Some get nude together routinely.

In the UK we generally prefer same sex spaces. For privacy and dignity, as well as safety.

I'm the workplace, under 1992 Workplace regulations employers must provide same sex toilets and changing facilities if needed.

Womens only facilities expand women's workplace options, whereas your proposal limits it. I have two examples of pioneering women and loos I've met.

1. Aged 16, woman I know was the first to be hired on a large engineering apprenticeship that hired 100s a year, with a residential college. They had to put in a separate bathroom for her.

1. Can't give details because may be outting. But also met the first woman to be in a very senior public role. Again, no bathrooms so they were required to put one in just for her.

If we didn't have requirements for single sex facilities, how many women would want to have to shower with men? How many employers would refuse because it would be too expensive? Evidently they were working with other men.

Requiring women to never be alone with men is a) not something we want and b) not going to advance feminism or help us generally.

Edit : am aware I've got two 1s in a list some bug won't let me change it

"Might help if YOU read the judgment."

Might help YOU if you read the context of the discussion. The point initially made was about majority of the tyranny & how constitutional law prevented that. That special exemptions are already included in those laws or that the UK judicial judgement interpreted that law to define 'sex' as biological is irrelevant to the point i was making because the law couldn't be changed it was only 'interpreted'. And in any case the UK courts don't represent legal decisions globally because the opposite decision in the interpretation of sex was made in the federal court of Australia.

Because some elected officials decided that rather than do their job that they could ignore the law.

The Courts ruling clearly pointed out that they had no legal basis to use public funds and public office in the way they were proposing to do.

Fascinating.

Still ignoring the privacy and dignity point.

AFTER I've said about the point always being inconvenient and ignored.

A group of women from Mumsnet take a case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Some random Australian poster, who thinks transwomen are of a more feminine temperament and are therefore less inclined to violence, comes on to Mumsnet to try and mis-explain/disparage the Supreme Court decision and tells us to read the judgement.

Most of us have read the judgement mate. All of it. Have you?

And if I'm not sure of any bits I'll just ask Trina at FWS next time I email her.

Mate.

At this stage, I don’t think anyone can make out your points. You react using sound bit cut and paste, you don’t seem to understand how to quote people or reply to them. Your arguments are lacking coherence and consistency.

You really seem more interested in some kind of performance where you are winning some kind of debate in front of an unseen audience than actually engaging with the topic. There is little relevance in your posts. It is like you fling shit and others clean up after you.

"Requiring women to never be alone with men is a) not something we want and b) not going to advance feminism or help us generally."

Ahhh but you said 'safety matters' to you. But only when convenient?

Can't have it both ways.

🙄🙄
Not enough eye rolls in the world.
This is like arguing with a toddler.

I want single sex spaces in certain situations (changing rooms particularly) and to be able to go out alone? Why can't I have both? Are women only allowed to want one thing?

Yes historically it was very dangerous being gay of course. One MP even fled abroad due to his toilet ‘use’, and being a repeat offender, it could be punishable by death.

There is a lot of history with toilets. They should be studied more, particularly the safety aspects should be broken down and dissected.

"At this stage, I don’t think anyone can make out your points."

Shooting the messenger?

Make an argument or beat it ❄️.

Just a small reminder for readers of whoever or whatever opened the thread with this :

Women's 'Private Spaces'
430 replies

Howseitgoin · Today 03:45
Clearly private spaces for women are considered a necessity by many due to a propensity for male sexual violence. Given this threat is much greater by orders of magnitude in the work place as opposed to public bathrooms, isn't it inconsistent not to demand private spaces there as well?
Thoughts?

Uk V Oz
And to point out that the elected persons in the UK normally can not be elected by the Australia public due to election rules so the debates about legislation will not involve the same people or be about the same things so the law even if similar will not be a copy paste version in both countries.

There was someone on the radio the other week who said pigeons are very intelligent, so maybe not.

Extraordinary range of non-sequiturs.

The N+1 argument (again)

Whats your number?

OP, no one has said that UK law applies world-wide. Throwing out wildly different bits and pieces of 'information' that are factually incorrect or irrelevant is not helpful to the discussion you allege you want.
Why should the sex class of males be given the sex-based rights of females?

Thanks. It's very hard to tell who is a troll on this forum sometimes! But I've been thinking about these two women all morning waiting to reply so...ah well.

I've seen some anecdotes that women in male dominated fields with shared changing rooms are facing particular problems with i.e. intact transwomen sharing showers.

And that girls are drinking less water so they don't have to wee in school mixed loos.

Where to even start with this nonsense?

1. Women asserting their right to single sex spaces isn't "the tyranny of the majority". The Equality Act is very carefully balanced to ensure that all groups of people who are at risk of discrimination due to a particular characteristic have adequate protection. It was a landmark piece of legislation and actually the first piece of legislation of its kind anywhere in the world which actually gave trans people the right to protection from discrimination on grounds of their gender reassignment status. The same piece of legislation ALSO recognises that there are circumstances in which having single sex spaces or associations which exclude all members of the opposite sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
2. In seeking to argue that "sex" for the purposes of the Equality Act means identified or certificated sex rather than biological sex, the trans "rights" lobby has effectively campaigned for the legal erasure of the female sex. Not content with the specific protected characteristic which exists for trans people, they tried to stop female people from having their own protected characteristic or any recognition of their existence in law. The Supreme Court carefully considered the legislation, including the contemporaneous records of the parliamentary debate which led to that legislation, and concluded that this could not possibly have been parliament's intention.
3. The Supreme Court judgment is not the result of a referendum in which the general public were consulted about the meaning of the Equality Act and a majority of "cis people" (who of course greatly outnumber trans people) voted to exclude trans people from toilets and changing rooms, so your concerns about the "tyranny of the majority" are unfounded. The decision was reached by five Supreme Court judges whose only job was to consider how the law was drafted, and why, and whether interpreting it one way as opposed to the other might lead to an absurdity. Their job is to confirm what the law actually is, not to change it to what a majority of people want it to be.
4. One could argue, however, that in clarifying and confirming the actual law, the Supreme Court has attempted to put a stop to the tyranny of the minority, where a small group of biological males consider themselves to be the sole arbiters of what a woman is and which spaces they should be allowed to use, and women's rights and needs are disregarded. This is a very good thing.
5. Now that the Supreme Court has interpreted the law in this way, that is the actual law unless and until Parliament decides to change it. And if the Government decides to introduce a new bill amending or replacing the Equality Act, in which trans people have full access to spaces intended for the opposite sex and the rest of us can like it or lump it, they will have to stand up in the House of Commons and explain in front of the media, the electorate and the rest of the world, why they don't believe women deserve to exist in law or have the right to penis-free spaces in which to get changed. And they can expect that argument to be robustly challenged, both by their political opponents who have realised that this position will go down like a cup of cold sick with most of the electorate, by the House of Lords, and by the electorate itself on the next election day. This is how the democratic process works.
6. Literally nobody has suggested that the Supreme Court decision applies anywhere else in the world. All countries are sovereign and free to make and unmake their own laws. Just as Australia doesn't have to follow the Supreme Court, we don't have to follow the example of countries like Australia. We have the freedom to say, "We don't agree with Australia. We believe women's rights are also human rights, and that trans people's rights don't trump everyone else's. We believe that the Equality Act strikes the right balance and ensures that everyone's rights are adequately protected, and yes OK maybe some trans people are unhappy about this and believe that they should have more rights than everyone else, but we don't have to agree with them."
7. Personally I think the reason that people in countries like Australia are getting so het up about the Supreme Court judgment, which doesn't directly affect them in any way, is because every piece of "trans litigation" in the UK exposes the vampiric gender ideology to dreaded sunlight. Because you can bet your life that Sall Grover's lawyers are following Ben Cooper and Akua Reindorf's arguments very closely and cherry picking the best ones. And if Giggle v Tickle goes all the way to the Australian Supreme Court who then say that no, Australian women don't have the right to exist in any way, shape or form that excludes the fragrant Mr Tickle, a significant number of the Australian electorate are going to think, "Huh. Surely that's not right. Why don't Australian women have the same rights as British women?"

Yep public water and waste disposal are key to public health and the ability to building cities. But they are not "razzmatazz" enough for most.

"OP, no one has said that UK law applies world-wide. Throwing out wildly different bits and pieces of 'information' that are factually incorrect or irrelevant is not helpful to the discussion you allege you want."

It's a long thread with many 'tangents' that you can't keep up is on you.

"Why should the sex class of males be given the sex-based rights of females?"

Sex based rights are a contradictory nonsense. Only anti discrimination exists.

Only when necessary.

You very obviously can have different regulations for different circumstances.

See also age restrictions.

Sex based rights are a contradictory nonsense. Only anti discrimination exists.

As I said, MRA.

Word salad.

As I said, MRA.

MRA = anyone who disagrees with me

"reasonable, affordable, and achievable". Not "convenient".

You still have not replied to my query as to why you referred to yourself as "we" upthread. Are you a group of scatter-witted hard-of-thinking people or one scatter-witted hard-of-thinking person identifying as a group?

No, an MRA is someone who thinks men's rights trump women's rights.

Which does appear to be your hot take.