Is it safety or separation?

[OneFlakyMaker]

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".

The answer is still no.

Trans logic, innit. We get accused of being a hive mind, and then when we all pretty much agree, we get accused of self importance. 😁

You're not allowed in the ladies, Hows. Get over it.

No.
RTB is part of this large community of women and when she says :

"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"

she's not being self important. She's speaking the truth.

Transactivists know which way the wind is blowing, has blown actually. Look at Shon Faye and 'it's over'.

So what's the point of coming on here and whining about it? I don't get it. It's finished.

I'm sure it's for attention. It's not like the women on Mumsnet can't spot attention seeking behaviour at fifty paces.

Anger, punishment and revenge.

They blame MN.

Nice try but the "self importance" was directed at this:

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

You can always depend on a misdirect on MN…..

So much is that women have to be blamed for the actions of men.

and I say no.

Yeah. Nothing like proving women's point!

Well yes, in the same way that vegetarians would side eye a vegetarian social group welcoming meat eaters as as long as their ham sandwiches are labelled "cheese".

It's not the mixing with meat eaters that offends. Most vegetarians are fine with that even if they find some of the meat eaters' behaviour immoral. It's bringing meat eaters under the label Vegetarian that offends vegetarians.

You're on FWR! arguably the birthplace of terfism.

There aren't going to be many women who disagree with red, Howse.

To be fair, its not unlike Trumps personal propaganda arm Fox News/'defend defend defend' innit?

True but that isn't relevant to the charge of self importance.

What's that got to do with the price of fish? 🫠

Can you please explain this further?

Well, to be honest your posts give off a totally self important everyone should listen to me vibe so perhaps you might want to take a look at how you yourself are coming across?

Well, to be honest your posts give off a totally self important everyone should listen to me vibe so perhaps you might want to take a look at how you yourself are coming across?

False equivalence.
You are assuming there isn't a commonality there when as we have already discussed there clearly is.

Lol.

One man says a thing. Many women disagree with him.

The man considers the plural women using the plural pronoun to refer to themselves "self important".

The man continues to pronounce his lofty solo judgements.

In your opinion.

Wouldn’t do to make self important declarations without that qualifier now, would it?

And Howse is a prime example of the point that just keeps proving!

It's genius.

It means that the charges of MN being a propaganda source are legitimate given the there's no serious engagement in discussion on some issues (Certainly not all) rather a defensive & disinformation stance.

What on earth does that mean? Total word salad

A bit like how I engaged and engaged with you and you didn’t answer any of my questions no matter how many times I asked over the weekend?

The “hostility” on the fb group thread?

Women have pushed back on those who have shown little understanding to those who wanted the social group to remain single sex. It has not been confirmed by that OP how many of the group wanted to the group to remain female only so the discussion then became hypothetical.

And all along there are posters in that discussion declaring that they don’t care, as if that mattered in a group where women have stated that they did care. That is where the pushback is occurring. Posters are pushing back where is the lack of consideration some people have for those who DO need the group to remain female only.

I think there is a rather obvious oversimplification of the discussion on that thread being spread .

Wouldn’t it be awesome for male people to just acknowledge they are male and not demand access to female single sex provisions. It doesn’t matter how super feminine they are or how masculine they are, if they are male people they should respect female people’s need for single sex spaces.

Not separatism because that is a mischaracterisation of the aim. That claim is catastrophisation in action.

Indeed. Perhaps he really believes there are hordes of women who don't agree with us.

That men ignoring women's consent and violating their boundaries in direct breach of the law isn't indicative of their attitude to women in general.