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?

You read the book? Are you a sado masochist?

😂I thought I'd stay true to my values and get a "balanced" viewpoint.

I had a minor breakdown and composed a song summarising her views, which got stuck in my head ("penises don't rape women, people do").

Feeling much better a few days later. Have highlighted bits for future use 😉

Only people with penises attached to them rape people, Judith.

We used to have a word for those people.

What was it? Muppets? Morons? Mingers?

She’s only sado if she inflicts it on us too.

I linked you to the Ash Sarkar - Judith Butler video interview. It's your own silly fault that you chose to read the book instead🙄

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

Logic fail. So I take it you don't agree with women participating in the work place as otherwise "women will get hurt".

Darls, you already make that deal with the devil routinely…😂

Holy non sequitur, Batman.

😂

"to the new position of single sex spaces are not necessary after all and are in fact the start of a slippery slope to forced segregation."

It's not a new position, we already do that in the workplace.

As far as potential slippery slope goes, historically that already happened.

@MurkyWeather it is, I wouldn't recommend anyone follows me down that dark dark road...

"She’s always been an interesting thinker. Shame the OP felt the need to claim her as some sort of TRA. Glad you cleared that up."

Relevance fail.

Me: Paglia claimed women should risk their safety for liberty.
You: Paglia said 'trans women aren't women'

Well, you took one for the team. I appreciate that

Morning OP. Can you answer my question about safety?

Yes, like 99% of the population whether they admit it or not. How do you like them smoothly segued non sequitur apples?

"Um, this law goes back in the UK to the early 1970s; I am reasonably sure of this because suddenly the place where I worked had to provide one loo for the men and one for the women, since more than six of us worked there.
The boss, who was an excellent bloke, immediately decided that the one with the window and wash-basin, which we'd all used until then, was the women's loo and the one with no window was for the men. This was changed when he realised the men pissed on the floor and the women didn't, so the men needed the ventilation from the window to make their loo bearable.
I don't think that it was actually a "politically expedient" decision then; I think it was part of a larger body of sensible moves to improve rather shoddy conditions in the workplace."

There's no legal obligation for employers to provide single sex spaces under the Equality Act despite the new ruling. Rather providers can provide an exemption if they want to for 'biological' women. There's no requirement & never has been.

As far as politically expedient goes, we all know Starmer was forced to disavow transwomen as women to win. The media moral panic beat up guaranteed that.

Ah, the kraken wakes. Luckily it is my bedtime, so I do not have to endure round two

"Newsflash, demanding access to single sex spaces of the of the opposite sex, IS NOT a human right. I am glad that UK feels compelled to respect women’s human rights to safety and dignity by providing single sex spaces.

But self determination is. Its in the HR charter.

I don't really understand your point. In the US we have many hard fought laws that protect everyone from harassment, discrimination, and abuse of a sexual nature in the workplace. It became a national issue when the very brave Anita Hill testified against US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Since then most (right-minded) men won't even pay a woman a harmless compliment that isn't work related for fear of how it could be perceived.

It's pretty infrequent that a woman would be in a private, closed quarter with a coworker in a way that would give him a chance to assault her without retribution. Most importantly, most women know and could identify their attacker since... they're co workers and they know each other. So obviously, she could report or press charges quite easily through the designated channels.

A bathroom on the other hand, you're mostly dealing with strangers in an unfamiliar, enclosed space. An assault could quite easily happen here and a perp could easily get away with it and go on to do it again and again.

It's almost as if, like, you don't understand what the threat of sexual violence actually is bc... You have never really had to think about it the way women do bc... you're a dude.

"I don’t know what you are implying here (you don’t make sense) but it suggests you are dictating to women they are not allowed to be safe."

That's because you have cognitive dissonance.
On one hand you argue men make women unsafe & should be separated but on the other routinely disavow this view by participating in the work place.

IE you can't handle the inconsistency here.

"Still laughing at Allslop being posted as a credible source."

As opposed to JK Rowling? 😂

Yeah, women have human rights too. Go check out what the Geneva Convention says about male and female prisoners of war. Why is that, do you think?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule119

JK Rowling knows more about being a woman than any man does, including “trans women”.

"The UK was compelled to pass the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
Regulations 1992 as a politically expedient decision?
Tell me more, I'm intrigued."

Why the necessity for the new ruling then? Because Workplace regulations never made what sex in exemptions means? Hmmm?

Vague laws aren't the guarantee you think they are.

"And all along the OP fails to understand safeguarding principles, legitimate discrimination, feminist principles, and that Australian employment law has observed sex based employment for decades based on the specific needs of the female body."

Yeah? And just how did they define 'sex'? 😂
Good luck in the high court….

"TRA cant argue women are the same as men anymore with all the sporting bodies being forced to admit that the female sport class is needed because female bodies differ from male bodies."

Non sequitur. 'Sporting bodies made a ruling ergo trans women aren't women applies everywhere'🤪