Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is it safety or separation?

660 replies

OneFlakyMaker · 20/09/2025 05:54

When opposing transgender people in women's spaces, are you looking for safe spaces or separate spaces?

They may overlap but are not the same thing, and while a lot of the discussion is focused on safety, the tone and some arguments hint that addressing safety won't be enough for many people to feel comfortable. Instead, a place without males is sought.

I read one woman described it "At the club we used the women's bathroom to get a break from interacting with men".

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 07:18

Igneococcus · 22/09/2025 06:13

Why do women have to justify why they want single sex spaces, why are the men who demand access never required to explain why they should be in there? All this discussion, just so men can go into spaces they were told not to go.

Cos men don't like that word.

No.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 07:33

OneFlakyMaker · 21/09/2025 06:19

Didn't expect it to have so many responses. My responses to some of the themes appearing in the comments so far:

The "transgender people" wording: I was referring mostly to trans women, and most responders figured this out.

"safe space are single-sex spaces": that's the crux of the issue: are you looking for a space where men are absent as well as women, are are you looking for a communal space where women gather together but men are excluded. These are different things.

"I want a women-only space so I can feel more comfortable speaking": that makes sense. In the past 60 years, (US) society generaly accepts such arbitrary preferences in the private realm, but won't enforce such preferences in the public realm. You can reject roommates based on sex since a home is the private sphere, but a landlord cannot discriminate on sex since it's not a personal interaction. That's a major distinction that still stands.

"women need single-sex spaces while men don't need them (that's a cornerstone of feminism": that's a problematic stance. It frames feminism as a separatist, if not a supremacy, movement. It renders anti-feminist rhetoric more plausible since the movement is inherently willing to create different classes of citizens.

"single-occupant bathrooms are unsafe due to isolation": that sounds like post-hoc justification to avoid a solution that could accommodate trans women (or TIM, if that's your preferred term). If multi-occupancy is needed for safety, why are single-occupancy bathrooms allowed? Is there any requirement to have an attendant at all times? If you want to have a women-only communal space, say it - that was exactly the question.

Essentially, safety concerns can be addressed with practical solutions, e.g. physical barriers (closed stalls) chaperons, monitoring. Segregation cannot be solved in any other way. I'd support public funding for safety solutions (e.g. grants to create single occupant stalls), since making people feel safe and diffusing this wedge issue is a worthy cause. But if separation is the goal, than that solution will be misguided.

And that was the purpose of the question - not a "gotcha", not a "you should let AMAB in your stall" (that was never argued), but instead - "what do you really want?"

"But if separation is the goal, than that solution will be misguided."

Interesting discussion. I have had the same concerns in terms of the gender critical movement moving towards separatism as that undermines the feminist project. I think its spawning from the idea that women would endure less direct misogyny in a separatist-minded spaces, but the problem is when men are separated from women, they become even more misogynistic. They then have even less incentive to hire women or vote for women. I think never interacting with a group of people makes it much easier to "other" & stereotype them.

Obviously there are times when separation is needed for safety like shelters, hospital rooms, and as long as they exist, prisons/jails are good examples of spaces where separatism makes sense. But I am concerned this kernel of truth is being exploited as a gateway to separatism. It's not there yet but I suspect we are on our way under the guise of 'safety'. As for example it will be 'safer' if single sex schools are made a legal necessity.

But here's the rub, self-imposed sepratism becoming a normalised demand is largely the product of institutional failure as in the failure to protect women via the judicial, education systems & most importantly government policy that exacerbates poverty & by extension violence towards women. We can't expect women not to retreat if we as a society can't or won't do anything about their victimisation.

TheKeatingFive · 22/09/2025 07:35

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 07:18

Cos men don't like that word.

No.

Well here it is again ...

NO

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 07:39

A timely reminder.

Only MRAs benefit in a discussion about the legitimacy of women's safety and think that comparisons with US civil rights and separation are fair and accurate parallels.

There is a reason for this.

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

There is no other place this discussion goes.

NextRinny · 22/09/2025 08:07

I'm just going to eye up the man sheds, and their elite versions.

Which works well without any policing or anyone questioning why they need to exist.

Even if women have no reason to want their own space, women have a right to congregate without adult males being present.

AnSolas · 22/09/2025 08:17

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 07:39

A timely reminder.

Only MRAs benefit in a discussion about the legitimacy of women's safety and think that comparisons with US civil rights and separation are fair and accurate parallels.

There is a reason for this.

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

There is no other place this discussion goes.

On the UP side MN may have new converts peaking soon.
No to mixed sex shelters
No to mixed sex hospital rooms
No to mixed sex prisons
Progress!!

No idea why posters would think blaming women for mens choices is rational but baby steps.

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

^ This 100%

KitWyn · 22/09/2025 08:35

OneFlakyMaker
"I want a women-only space so I can feel more comfortable speaking": that makes sense. In the past 60 years, (US) society generaly accepts such arbitrary preferences in the private realm, but won't enforce such preferences in the public realm. You can reject roommates based on sex since a home is the private sphere, but a landlord cannot discriminate on sex since it's not a personal interaction. That's a major distinction that still stands.

My response to the above bit from the original Poster OneFlakyMaker

Single Sex Spaces are, for all the women and girls involved, a 'personal interaction'.

A woman locked in a prison with male inmates is personally in greater danger of violent/sexual assault. A female Olympic athlete will personally lose her place in the Women's Final to a male competitor. A teenage girl will personally exclude herself from swimming at the local pool after being frightened by the presence of an adult male in the changing room.

Moreover, this is the UK. So transgender people are protected under the Equality Act 2010 from losing their home, being denied service in a shop, made redundant etc. for being transgender. The relevant protected characteristic under the Act is "Gender Reassignment".

A further protected characteristic under the Act is "Sex". And the recent Supreme Court Ruling made it clear for the purposes of the Equality Act, that a trans woman's sex is "Male". This includes all trans women, whether with or without a GRC. So all trans women must be excluded from all Single Sex Spaces for Women.

This is what most Gender Critical people want.

So in summary again:

We want protection for transgender people from discrimination AND recognition that sex is binary and fixed, and sometimes it matters a great deal for the safety and wellbeing of women and girls.
Trans women are adults males, so must be excluded from all Women-Only Spaces.

Arran2024 · 22/09/2025 08:48

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 07:33

"But if separation is the goal, than that solution will be misguided."

Interesting discussion. I have had the same concerns in terms of the gender critical movement moving towards separatism as that undermines the feminist project. I think its spawning from the idea that women would endure less direct misogyny in a separatist-minded spaces, but the problem is when men are separated from women, they become even more misogynistic. They then have even less incentive to hire women or vote for women. I think never interacting with a group of people makes it much easier to "other" & stereotype them.

Obviously there are times when separation is needed for safety like shelters, hospital rooms, and as long as they exist, prisons/jails are good examples of spaces where separatism makes sense. But I am concerned this kernel of truth is being exploited as a gateway to separatism. It's not there yet but I suspect we are on our way under the guise of 'safety'. As for example it will be 'safer' if single sex schools are made a legal necessity.

But here's the rub, self-imposed sepratism becoming a normalised demand is largely the product of institutional failure as in the failure to protect women via the judicial, education systems & most importantly government policy that exacerbates poverty & by extension violence towards women. We can't expect women not to retreat if we as a society can't or won't do anything about their victimisation.

Edited

The gender critical movement is not moving towards separatism- it is not trying to carve out new areas to exclude men but rather trying to retain the situation we all grew up with, where women's services and spaces were commonplace and accepted by everyone.

The current problem is that men have been told that they are welcome in women's spaces if they think that suits them, but it is not true. Institutions have been encouraged to allow this with no concern for women's needs. It is absolutely the patriarchy in action, forcing us aside to accommodate men.

The fight back has been extraordinary. Women are simply not going to put up with this. The UK courts agree with us. There is no compromise, no accommodations that will work for women. Trans women need to find a new solution.

EsmeWeatherwaxHatpin · 22/09/2025 08:59

I don’t need to justify why I want spaces without men. It’s disingenuous to suggest anyone doesn’t know the reason.

The real question is why so many men feel the need to try and break women’s boundaries. But again, we all know the answer to that.

DustyWindowsills · 22/09/2025 09:02

Arran2024 · 22/09/2025 08:48

The gender critical movement is not moving towards separatism- it is not trying to carve out new areas to exclude men but rather trying to retain the situation we all grew up with, where women's services and spaces were commonplace and accepted by everyone.

The current problem is that men have been told that they are welcome in women's spaces if they think that suits them, but it is not true. Institutions have been encouraged to allow this with no concern for women's needs. It is absolutely the patriarchy in action, forcing us aside to accommodate men.

The fight back has been extraordinary. Women are simply not going to put up with this. The UK courts agree with us. There is no compromise, no accommodations that will work for women. Trans women need to find a new solution.

This.👆🏼 I'm baffled that @Howseitgoin has managed to conjure out of thin air a drive for separatism, when all we are trying to do is protect the single-sex services we already have.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:06

Arran2024 · 22/09/2025 08:48

The gender critical movement is not moving towards separatism- it is not trying to carve out new areas to exclude men but rather trying to retain the situation we all grew up with, where women's services and spaces were commonplace and accepted by everyone.

The current problem is that men have been told that they are welcome in women's spaces if they think that suits them, but it is not true. Institutions have been encouraged to allow this with no concern for women's needs. It is absolutely the patriarchy in action, forcing us aside to accommodate men.

The fight back has been extraordinary. Women are simply not going to put up with this. The UK courts agree with us. There is no compromise, no accommodations that will work for women. Trans women need to find a new solution.

Hmmm, that's certainly not reflected on a recent MN thread where a facebook women's only friendship social membership was discussed regarding the inclusion of a trans woman. Regardless of the overwhelming enthusiastic acceptance of the group (to quote "open arms"), it was roundly condemned by the MN crowd as the trans woman was a "man" with one commenter being relentlessly attacked for the sin of saying it wouldn't bother her personally.

Arran2024 · 22/09/2025 09:11

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:06

Hmmm, that's certainly not reflected on a recent MN thread where a facebook women's only friendship social membership was discussed regarding the inclusion of a trans woman. Regardless of the overwhelming enthusiastic acceptance of the group (to quote "open arms"), it was roundly condemned by the MN crowd as the trans woman was a "man" with one commenter being relentlessly attacked for the sin of saying it wouldn't bother her personally.

But that's the point - women are allowed to have separate spaces, including online and social media. A man joining a woman's group will undoubtedly dominate it because that's what men do. It's so hard wired due to the socialisation as boys.

What we are not doing is asking for separation like they have in many Muslim countries for example.

ArabellaSaurus · 22/09/2025 09:15

NextRinny · 22/09/2025 08:07

I'm just going to eye up the man sheds, and their elite versions.

Which works well without any policing or anyone questioning why they need to exist.

Even if women have no reason to want their own space, women have a right to congregate without adult males being present.

Mm. Unfortunately, many men's sheds have been pushed to be 'everyone' sheds. Which has destroyed the point they were set up for - helping men with socialising. This really pisses me off. Men need spaces, too.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:16

Arran2024 · 22/09/2025 09:11

But that's the point - women are allowed to have separate spaces, including online and social media. A man joining a woman's group will undoubtedly dominate it because that's what men do. It's so hard wired due to the socialisation as boys.

What we are not doing is asking for separation like they have in many Muslim countries for example.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed, but there's certainly hostile pressure against those who personally don't mind mixing which is concerning not to mention the slippery slope aspect of creeping sepratism.

Anthophile · 22/09/2025 09:18

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/09/2025 07:50

Yikes.

OK, so you're clearly not from the UK. That's OK but please bear in mind that you have come onto a UK based site where most users are from the UK and you have to be respectful of our culture. American cultural imperialism is not appreciated here.

are you looking for a space where men are absent as well as women, are are you looking for a communal space where women gather together but men are excluded

It depends on the context. When it comes to toilets and changing rooms, it's about safety and dignity. There is a much greater risk that we will be harmed in such spaces if men are present, and even if a man does not physically harm us, his presence may be distressing and cause many women to feel uncomfortable or self exclude.

The idea that such spaces should be segregated by sex is not actually controversial. It is the norm in basically all societies worldwide. It's why you now have so-called "bathroom bills" in your country. Because these sex segregated spaces exist everywhere and we all understand why people want and need them.

Until now, nobody has been suggesting that there is no need for these spaces to be single sex and they should all be made mixed sex, because the reality is that most people want them to remain single sex.

So what has changed?

Certainly not the safety and dignity aspect.

What has changed is that trans identifying men ("trans women") started demanding to be included in women's spaces, and now society is pushing back against that, the narrative is changing to "why do women even need their own spaces in the first place?"

Never mind that trans identifying men have been saying it is absolutely unthinkable for them to share such spaces with men. Now it is perfectly reasonable for everyone to share such spaces with men, apparently.

I can only conclude that the argument has shifted from, "If trans identifying men can't have women's spaces, women can't have them either."

I do find it interesting that you seem to think it is more legitimate for women to have spaces where they can speak and associate without men than to have spaces where they can use the toilet and get changed without men.

Firstly, I find this rather anti-feminist. As a strong, capable, confident woman, I have no problem talking to or speaking in front of men. But I don't generally want to take my clothes off in front of them.

And secondly, I assume you think that trans identifying men (trans women) should be included in such spaces along with women. Unfortunately, they have been socialised as men and they tend to dominate the conversation and mansplain as much as other men do. Including trans identifying men in a space designed for women to express themselves without being constantly talked over by men would very much defeat the point of that space existing.

Finally, I would say that as an American, you come from a profoundly misogynistic culture where women lack basic rights that they take for granted in the rest of the developed world. People who call themselves feminists in America do a lot of talking but never seem to achieve very much. So perhaps you should bear in mind that women in the UK have different expectations of feminism. The minimum level of basic respect and consideration that women believe they are entitled to is much higher in the UK than it is in the US. So before you judge British women for demanding things that you don't think women should be entitled to, perhaps consider the fact that you come from a country where most people don't consider women to be entitled to the most basic rights such as abortions and paid maternity leave, and consider whether perhaps it is American women who aren't demanding enough, rather than British women who are demanding too much.

Regarding your third paragraph, while I certainly don't believe feminists in the US can't do anything ever about federal rights on abortion or paid maternity leave because their hands are tied, it's true that the US political and cultural landscape is markedly different from that of the UK and any criticism of the perceived ineffectiveness of women's rights campaigns in the US should be viewed through that lens. I assume many are vaguely aware of this, but some may not, so I think it might be helpful to briefly touch on it.

The US is a federal republic of 50 states that sometimes feel like a federation of 50 small countries with starkly different political prorities and cultural standpoints, and the UK's devolution doesn't exactly mirror US state politics.

As long as abortion rights remain a thorny issue for religious conservatives, mostly older (and some younger) Republican voters, securing federal protection for abortion is going to be difficult; Tories, or mainstream UK conservatives, don't really care about making abortion illegal as GOP politicians do. Religious conservatives have vastly more political and financial influence in the US as well.

I'm not saying the UK isn't divided on certain issues, but in the US the division appears to be much stronger not just due to political differences, but cultural views as well; championing individualism at the cost of communitarianism and safety nets might have served the US-style capitalistic growth well, but that also means things that aren't immediately cutting costs and increasing profits, like paid maternity leave, is often considered superfluous and those campaigning for such things are just told to "find new jobs that have paid maternity leave, it's your fault if you don't have it, why should the rest of us care?".

That sort of mixture of individualism and capitalism means women seeking rights on paid maternity leave are left out, again especially in Republican-controlled states where there is not tangible political appetite to push for legal changes. Without somehow getting Republican states and their political representatives on board, federal codification is a tall order.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 09:19

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:06

Hmmm, that's certainly not reflected on a recent MN thread where a facebook women's only friendship social membership was discussed regarding the inclusion of a trans woman. Regardless of the overwhelming enthusiastic acceptance of the group (to quote "open arms"), it was roundly condemned by the MN crowd as the trans woman was a "man" with one commenter being relentlessly attacked for the sin of saying it wouldn't bother her personally.

"Yeah but, no but...

...it's important that I get in an argument that kicks MN no matter what the thread"

ArabellaSaurus · 22/09/2025 09:19

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 07:39

A timely reminder.

Only MRAs benefit in a discussion about the legitimacy of women's safety and think that comparisons with US civil rights and separation are fair and accurate parallels.

There is a reason for this.

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

There is no other place this discussion goes.

Yep. You can tell, too, because whether its insinuation or outright sneers and insults, these arguments are always based on ad homs and manipulation. Because they aren't logical or reasoned; but emotion based - that emotion being animus towards women.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 09:20

I think we have concluded by now that you don't like women and you don't like MN Howse.

I refer to my previous point.

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 09:22

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:16

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed, but there's certainly hostile pressure against those who personally don't mind mixing which is concerning not to mention the slippery slope aspect of creeping sepratism.

Edited

Mate. Just stay out of women's spaces.

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 09:23

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:06

Hmmm, that's certainly not reflected on a recent MN thread where a facebook women's only friendship social membership was discussed regarding the inclusion of a trans woman. Regardless of the overwhelming enthusiastic acceptance of the group (to quote "open arms"), it was roundly condemned by the MN crowd as the trans woman was a "man" with one commenter being relentlessly attacked for the sin of saying it wouldn't bother her personally.

Disagreeing with someone isn’t attacking them.

Both men and women are legally entitled to single sex spaces. If a group admits one member of the other sex then it is no longer a skeleton sex space. And that’s fine, if that is the decision the group make. What they can’t do is insist they are still single sex if they are admitting a trans person. The law is quite clear, feelings don’t come into it.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:24

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 09:20

I think we have concluded by now that you don't like women and you don't like MN Howse.

I refer to my previous point.

If your argument is essentially that women and girls don't need safety, privacy and dignity from men you are either a creep, a perv or enabling one. Whichever it is, you hate women either openly or subconsciously because you have utter contempt for their needs.

"We" 😂 The self importance is breathtaking…..

Thank you for your opinion.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 09:25

Separatism is where the powerful exclude the powerless to main their hold on power.

Protection is where the powerless exclude the powerful to protect themselves against power.

Women's single sex provisions when requested and fought for by women are the latter.

HTH.

Anthophile · 22/09/2025 09:25

Anthophile · 22/09/2025 09:18

Regarding your third paragraph, while I certainly don't believe feminists in the US can't do anything ever about federal rights on abortion or paid maternity leave because their hands are tied, it's true that the US political and cultural landscape is markedly different from that of the UK and any criticism of the perceived ineffectiveness of women's rights campaigns in the US should be viewed through that lens. I assume many are vaguely aware of this, but some may not, so I think it might be helpful to briefly touch on it.

The US is a federal republic of 50 states that sometimes feel like a federation of 50 small countries with starkly different political prorities and cultural standpoints, and the UK's devolution doesn't exactly mirror US state politics.

As long as abortion rights remain a thorny issue for religious conservatives, mostly older (and some younger) Republican voters, securing federal protection for abortion is going to be difficult; Tories, or mainstream UK conservatives, don't really care about making abortion illegal as GOP politicians do. Religious conservatives have vastly more political and financial influence in the US as well.

I'm not saying the UK isn't divided on certain issues, but in the US the division appears to be much stronger not just due to political differences, but cultural views as well; championing individualism at the cost of communitarianism and safety nets might have served the US-style capitalistic growth well, but that also means things that aren't immediately cutting costs and increasing profits, like paid maternity leave, is often considered superfluous and those campaigning for such things are just told to "find new jobs that have paid maternity leave, it's your fault if you don't have it, why should the rest of us care?".

That sort of mixture of individualism and capitalism means women seeking rights on paid maternity leave are left out, again especially in Republican-controlled states where there is not tangible political appetite to push for legal changes. Without somehow getting Republican states and their political representatives on board, federal codification is a tall order.

Sorry, the paragraph I was referencing isn't the third. It's the final paragraph.

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 09:26

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 09:16

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed, but there's certainly hostile pressure against those who personally don't mind mixing which is concerning not to mention the slippery slope aspect of creeping sepratism.

Edited

What you see as “hostile pressure” I see as a clear push for groups and organisations to obey the law in the U.K.

I am not aware of any other area of law in the U.K. where asking someone to obey the law is characterised as “hostile pressure”. Can you please share if there is another area of law in the uk that is characterised in this way?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/09/2025 09:26

Arran2024 · 22/09/2025 08:48

The gender critical movement is not moving towards separatism- it is not trying to carve out new areas to exclude men but rather trying to retain the situation we all grew up with, where women's services and spaces were commonplace and accepted by everyone.

The current problem is that men have been told that they are welcome in women's spaces if they think that suits them, but it is not true. Institutions have been encouraged to allow this with no concern for women's needs. It is absolutely the patriarchy in action, forcing us aside to accommodate men.

The fight back has been extraordinary. Women are simply not going to put up with this. The UK courts agree with us. There is no compromise, no accommodations that will work for women. Trans women need to find a new solution.

Love that this thread attracts two extreme transactivists whining about being told no access to women and girls undressing 😆
Then they treat women to incomprehensible MRA burble - "concerns" about gc separatism and on and on. And neither is in the UK 😂😂

NO.

Swipe left for the next trending thread