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?

I'm basically on this thread to share anecdotes, I doubt I can convince the OP of anything.

Relatedly I grew up in a fairly dubious area with a lot of crime against women, rapes, sexual assault, violent assault. No go areas if you were from a certain area - at risk of violence.

Twice the police told women not to walk anyway alone, even in day light. I never walked anywhere alone at night or in certain areas. My friends and I used to discuss whether cycling was safer.

But I had an internship over the summer and I couldn't get to work in any other way. So I did it anyway, and thankfully wasn't stabbed.

Ooooo. ...

More personal opinions from someone not on the thread 🍿

Whats your femnist opinion on the "Non-sex" based rights a male human need to grow a baby?

You have not provided much to disagree with but what you have is very anti-feminist and pro-MRA
🍿

Discrimination isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s perfectly logical to discriminate and say that 14 year olds can’t enrol in primary schools or that 50 year olds can’t enter swimming galas for under 16s, or that a 20 stone person can’t have horse riding lessons (at any reputable school anyway!) or that a wheelchair user can’t enter the running part of the marathon.

I do wonder why an Australian has come to a UK based site to argue about British law though, why not go to an Australian site?

Oooh another slogan. Actually, thank you OP. I would far rather the honesty of a misogynist saying he simply doesn't want sex-based rights for women, rather than all the lying illogical waffle.
We can agree to disagree.

Gosh..... is that you David Allsop? Are you seriously just here to drum up traffic to your medium? Are you that desperate for views?

No, Somebody who doesn’t believe women should have sex specific rights, because they believe they threaten or inconvenience men.

Maybe there are none left that allow discussion on women's rights using accurate and precise language?

Who is David Allsop anyway?

Other than someone we can safely ignore because he's neither UK based, nor a woman?

When I Google I only get hits for a pilot who lost his licence for flying under the influence.

What about you ignoring me and my question?

OH MY! This is really hilarious.

Yes.... the EA says that we CAN have it both ways! Because the only time that discrimination exceptions can be used is when SEX MATTERS!

Meaning that when sex matters, female people can use proportionate measures for safeguarding and privacy and dignity.

Please. Stop the incoherent sound bite reactions which are mostly coming up false and those that are not false are simply flawed.

Although, you are bringing more and more eyes onto this thread and they are seeing the paucity of your arguments, and knowledge and your 'evidence'.

Why don't Australian women have the same rights as British women?"

It's very simple. Because the premise of feminism & has been fully adopted in action rather than name. IE self determination shouldn't be limited by reproductive characteristics not to mention women & men overlapping in psychological capacity legitimised gender equality.

We take our liberty very seriously here that's underpinned by harm prevention. Now you can argue women experience harms by recognising trans rights but that's at the cost of forgoing feminist principles IE liberty. Which is more harmful? Feminists have long argued the risk of harm by being more exposed to men is a necessary tradeoff for their liberty. That gender criticals are undeniably angling at sex separation undermines our equality & freedoms in that a demand for safety comes at a cost. There's a reason why far right patriarchal men love this talk & its because 'safetyism' is the road back to the past.

Wake up useful idiots.

Now its late in OZ so I'm off to bed be back in the morning OZ time. Be well all.

A twitter dude with a small following who delivers the same incoherent and logically deficit arguments that this OP does. I would say this OP is one of his followers (if not him) as they are posting links to his medium pages as some kind of evidenced gotcha.

I have watched him interact, and he is often just offensive.

Getting back to work now. If you are in Oz OP you must be tired.

“Safetyism” is better explained by whining about women being allowed to have spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity because the lack of validation makes you sad.

Is he Australian?

Translation: we know some women will get hurt but that’s better than men not getting their own way.

Women do not truely have liberty if there is nowhere they can go and be just with other women that is free of men. Men have liberty because they can go wherever they like.

It’s like the olden days of the Midnight Misogynist.

Majority of the tyranny & how constitutional law prevented that

We don't have a constitution in the Australian sense of higher law. However, we are part of the ECHR. European Court of Rights which is implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998. Any citizen has the right to bring cases under this act.

The most relevant is probably Article 8 - right to private life. Transfolk have the right to have their legal sex "recognised" under UK law. The original case was a transwoman who didn't want to use her "birth sex" ID to an employer. Under another ruling that recognition cannot depend on any medical treatments, i.e. hormones or surgery.

Since that case, they also have specific protections from discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 under gender reassignment (as well as age, disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation). There are specific areas where it is permitted to discriminate and separate, or even required to prevent disadvantages.

The Supreme Court clarified that sex has only meant biological sex in the Equality Act, so biological women are a protected characteristics. That means services and facilities can be provided to biological women.

Some men said "I'm a woman" and therefore I can go in women's only spaces / have a job role that is only for women / use rape crisis centres that are women only / enter women's only spaces anything else is illegal.

The court case wasn't about loos per se it was about the very legal existence of biological women and that in some cases our rights aren't compatible with giving transfolk what they wish.

In your Australian version of feminism:

• male people have the liberty to define what a woman is in a way that doesn't mean anything but enables them to be included
• female people don't have the right to say no to this
• the risk of actual harm to female people must be disregarded if doing anything to prevent it infringes the imagined liberties of male people
• male people have the right to enter any space or service for women they please
• female people don't have the right to even one tiny little space or service or even a bloody app where they can be free of the relentless penis people
• men and women - at the request of the aforementioned entitled male people - are defined as people who conform to regressive stereotypes, rather than according to any objective criteria
• women are discriminated against because of how they choose to identify, rather than their biological sex which they have not chosen and cannot control
• we don't need a word for female people at all because it's not relevant to anything and so this category does not exist in law

Sorry mate, but that is the literal opposite of feminism.

You need Germaine Greer to knock some sense into you.

There's a reason why far right patriarchal men love this talk & its because 'safetyism' is the road back to the past.

For your argument to be coherent, you would need to be arguing for mixed sex spaces (taking into account all points made by keeptoiletssafe and the bbc article about toilet provision).

But you appear to be arguing for single sex spaces that anyone can use, because trans women need protection from other men? You just don’t make sense.

Not quite.

We know some women will get hurt but that's better than men not getting their own way and this is a fundamental principle of feminism.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Isn’t wanting trans identified males to be protected “safetyism” and “the road back to the past” too? Try to at least have some semblance of coherence in your misogyny.

Well I think we're at least getting to the nub of his arguments now. For anyone who lost the will to live, I think in a nutshell: We need to be careful what we wish for and we've gone too far with all these rights because we can't have both legal protections and things like a job, and now we'll just be punished by the right-wing patriarchy (rather than the pretend-left patriarchy) and put back in our boxes. And it's all our fault. And anyway men can assault us whenever they like, so there.

You’re the only one I’ve ever heard of suggesting that the workplace should be segregated? If you aren’t for backwards steps perhaps stop suggesting them with zero rationale?
The men at my work are all clothed and professional. I don’t really want to share bathrooms with them, and don’t use the gender neutral bathrooms we have. Public toilets are used when necessary and thank goodness I don’t think I’ve seen a multi occupancy gender neutral public toilet because what woman would use that. I hope that helps.