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?

Yeah, if women don't need protection from men then why do trans women need this?

Make it make sense.

I am also wondering if the OP thinks the Supreme Court in the UK is like the Supreme Court in the USA. It's not.

In the UK the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases. It cannot declare laws unconstitutional, because Parliament is sovereign.

The Supreme Court can I.e. as here clarify and interpret laws like the Equality Act.

Oh more embarassment.

err... Feminism that excludes male people is not limiting female people to reproductive characteristics. You really have been misled in your reading choices.

I can also assure you, that in Australia, female people have had sex based rights under things like employment law for decades. Even decades ago, it was widely understood and campaigned for by feminists that female people had specific needs due to their bodies being that of the sex class of female.

Again, I really recommend that you get an understanding of illegitimate and legitimate discrimination.

For instance, even decades ago, female people had separate weight limits for lifting at work. Due to their female bodies. Now, that didn't mean that a work place could discriminate against a female job applicant or employee. In fact, I found Australian anti-discrimination for female people in the workplace to be much stronger than in the UK a couple of decades ago. However, it was SEX based.

You seem to be conflating discriminating on sex to allow special accommodations to be put in place to protect female people, with the very lazy argument of limiting female people because of their bodies.

"We take our liberty very seriously here that's underpinned by harm prevention."

Indeed! Australia does. But you seem to not be able to understand how this works. Despite your over confident posts.

"Now you can argue women experience harms by recognising trans rights but that's at the cost 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 & it's because 'safetyism' is the road back to the past."

Which feminists? Post the names of these feminists please. I am really keen to see just what you or they have mangled.

"Feminists have long argued the risk of harm by being more exposed to men is a necessary tradeoff for their liberty"

Feminists are not misanderists. This sentence seems to come straight from an incel playbook because it takes an absolutist approach. And as feminists will tell you, 'freedom' does not come at the expense of female people's safety.

If what you said was in any way true, feminists would not have started women only services at all. That they did can be considered proof that your type of 'liberty' always had provisions to exclude male people.

As I said, whether you intended to or not, you have repeated some classic incel thinking there.

"That gender criticals are undeniably angling at sex separation undermines our equality & freedoms in that a demand for safety comes at a cost."

Again, I recommend you really get your head around legitimate discrimination and illegitimate discrimination. This seems to be the fault line of your reasoning.

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

Fuck! There it is... the alignment of women calmly (ok, I have been laughing) pointing out the flaws in your points are now aligned with the far right.

Um no. I really suggest you read some content from the very left wing feminists and maybe understand that some facts in life are universally understood by people across the political spectrum.

I think you are missing the simple fact that employers have the ability to sanction sexual harassers in the workplace, with the penalty "lose your job" being available; that is why education and penalties work in that context.

Also the woman being harassed can identify "Brian from accounts" by name and position in the workplace. A woman in a public lavatory is a great deal less likely to be able to identify JD Randomperve who has harassed her there, wouldn't you agree? And to have someone to whom to identify him, come to that.

No. I think he is British.

Why do women's rights have to come with the cost of pretending some men are women because they say so?

Why is 'safetism' the road to the past for woman. But as soon as a great lump of a man says he feels 'unsafe' with other men, we women are supposed to leap into action as his shield and support human?

Listen to yourself 🙄

There seem to be quite a few David Allsops, so fuck knows. I assumed he was the one from Northern Arizona University but maybe not.

To quote the magnificent Sall Grover:

"Why do you need single sex spaces anyway?"
"Because we want them!"

https://archive.ph/WcFki

This archive link is to Allsop's twitter

So his relevant credentials are...absolutely fuck all then?

Also it’s silly to pretend women aren’t defined by our biology, of course we are. I’m 5’10” and weigh about 14st, not dissimilar to the average man, but if I were to start boxing there’s no way I’d be safe in the ring up against a man of equivalent height and weight to me, I can’t lift weights the same as the equivalent man or run as fast. Men’s clothes wouldn’t fit me over my wider hips or narrower shoulders, feminism accepts that men and women are different and we need different solutions to provide equity.

It could not be punishable by death. Laws around homosexual activity were unjust and arbitrary but not a capital offence.

"Feminists have long argued the risk of harm by being more exposed to men is a necessary tradeoff for their liberty"

Feminists are not misanderists. This sentence seems to come straight from an incel playbook because it takes an absolutist approach. And as feminists will tell you, 'freedom' does not come at the expense of female people's safety.

If what you said was in any way true, feminists would not have started women only services at all. That they did can be considered proof that your type of 'liberty' always had provisions to exclude male people.

As I said, whether you intended to or not, you have repeated some classic incel thinking there.

There really is no coherence. The person who posts "Feminists have long argued the risk of harm by being more exposed to men is a necessary tradeoff for their liberty", is someone who lacks any knowledge of feminist history.

There is such big holes in this statement that we can drive a convoy of semi-trailers loaded with dragline shovels through it.

Well, he is a TRA of long running.

This is just silly. It's like arguing that everybody should have to live in communal open halls because if we let them have a home of their own where they can get away from other people for a while, the next step will be the government saying we all have to stay in our houses all the time. It's either paranoia or deliberately disingenuous.

Allowing females some spaces away from males has at least a basis in ascertainable physical facts. Grouping people by an undefined subjective notion of "gender" does not. What makes a male enough of a "woman" to justify including him in female spaces? Be precise in your definition. And hint: him saying he is one is not an adequate reason. That's what that neo-nazi guy in Germany is doing in court right now, because their asinine gender self-id law has left the door wide open for him to do it.

That's a reason to ignore him, not quote him.

What a spectacular failure of logic.

We experience sexual harassment at work, in pubs and clubs, on public transport, in the street and the park and the gym and the fucking supermarket.

At work it is easier to hold these men to account because we know who they are and as employees we have the right to raise a grievance - there's a well laid out procedure we can follow.

The upshot is that sexual harassment in public places is orders of magnitude worse than in the workplace. It's the same men but they behave worse outside of work because their boss and HR are not there to stop them.

Men don't need to get alone with a woman to sexually harass her in a public place. They'll do it in a busy pub in front of all their mates, who will laugh. They'll do it in a bustling street and everyone will pretend not to notice. They'll do it in a packed train carriage with a revolting smirk on their face because they know you can't get away. It doesn't get reported much because what's the point? Who would do anything? It's so common it's normal from the age of about 10-12 until middle age grants us the superpower of invisibility.

Women know this, we understand what men are like. That's why we require single sex toilets and changing rooms, both at work and in public places.

That's a very different thing from wanting sex segregated workplaces or public spaces but I'm sure you know that and are just here to wind us up.

I have to say though, I would love a women only pub and I dare say there are plenty of women who would like to work there in what would be a female only workplace. One of my hopes is that following the SC ruling we see a rise in women's clubs of all descriptions.

Dunno what you get up to in the gents but the women's toilet is not a 'sphere of influence'.

What politically advantageous decision has the UK government made?

And why does he think we need to care about Australian laws?

Mental.

I have to say though, I would love a women only pub and I dare say there are plenty of women who would like to work there in what would be a female only workplace.

This could be one of the advantages of WFH. Men can interact with women's brains and women don't have to interact with men's hands

The throwing in of terms really struck me as someone who doesn't actually have the knowledge they seem to think they do. They are throwing in terms which don't really work in the context that they are using them, or are just misunderstood by them.

I believe that the OP believes the situation in Australia is morally superior and righteous compared to the UK.

So what?

I believe the situation in the UK is morally superior and righteous compared to Australia and all other countries which have thrown women under a bus for the benefit of trans identifying men.

I agree. The failure of the Gillard government and subsequent government's since to identify and rectify the issue is very concerning.