Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:01

🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣

OMG AND I ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERED HOW THE BIGLY LETTERS WORK ON THE BEST POSSIBLE POST FOR IT

😆😅🤣😂😂🤣😅😆😆😅😅🤣😂😂🤣😅

AnSolas · 22/09/2025 11:02

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/09/2025 10:29

I'm not saying it's easy, but I would expect there to have been some progress on this over the last generation, and there really hasn't been.

I would have thought that whilst the position in relation to women's rights in the US remains as dire as it is, so called feminists should not have even the smallest amount of bandwidth left over to worry about cross dressing men and their preferred pronouns.

I also think that by fannying around focusing on these luxury beliefs which most ordinary people don't share, they are putting off millions of potential supporters, including women who would obviously like to have sex based rights but don't see what feminism (by which I mean American "feminism" as opposed to real feminism) has got to do with them or how it is relevant to their lives in any way.

If women started voting for a proper, pro women Democratic Party en masse, they would have much more political clout to effect these changes. But that party doesn't exist.

The TRA in the abortion roll back is a stark example.

The pro-abortion message was and is hijacked by the BS people who get pregnant. The people in the people who can get pregnant class were too busy defending their right to be classed as people who can get pregnant.

They failed to actually put forward a half assed argument as to why women in a society which can bankrupt a woman with the cost of medical care during pregnancy may need access to a medical provision to not be pregnant.

Or that women face a social and financial cost by growing babies that the "other" side of the abortion right issue is not willing to recognise or legislate for.

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 11:04

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:56

Look, they were definitely 'fishing' & fishing on MN for a reason as in taking the GC temperature on sepratism which is well studied social concern & not just for sex. I even suspect that facebook thread was by the same people because essentially its a question about the same topic. But big deal. Why not just say 'no, relax, that's not the purpose here' or 'what do you expect if sexual violence is so rampant' as i did instead of being so weirdly conspiratorially hostile.

Push back rationally for the sake of your own cause FFS!

Edited

Nice inference there in your last paragraph.

I see you.

Beowulfa · 22/09/2025 11:05

Is "separatism" a new scoldy word to be used against all those unkind women who don't want to have to see cock in the changing rooms? Is it supposed to make us feel bad or something?

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 11:06

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 10:59

You know what is also lying? Lying.

I have answered the question. Multiple times. Were there too many long words? Too much careful nuance?

I'll try again with bullets.

There are noticeable differences in behaviour at the population level between the group of male people and the group of female people

These overlap such that some male people have some behaviours culturally associated with female people and vice versa.

Some men want to change the definition of "woman" from simple sex to "people who share female associated commonalities of behaviour"

However, these "commonalities" as you call them are not a more meaningful way to think about "men" and "women" than simple body sex for several reasons:

Female biology still exists and has a material impact of women's lives

The social construction around the female body and how both men and women are socialised to think about ot react to it also has a material impact on women's lives.

The history of women's disempowerment and marginalisation is important for understanding women (original sex based meaning)'s social, economic, domestic and political position today.

Notably, the men who wish to define womanhood by behavioural "commonalities" rather than sex very notably feel it entirely proper that it is they, and not women ourselves, who get to define which "commonalities" are significant, often on an individual basis. Women's own experiences of womanhood and our opinions on whether we consider these "commonalities" to be the significant ones are neither sought nor considered relevant when given.

Therefore for women in particular, replacing social, cultural and political recognition of our sex under the word "woman" with a self identified "commonality" based on the intersection of (possibly) biological differences of behaviour and entirely culturally imposed ideas of "womanhood" is unacceptable because it takes out of our story the most significant causes of risk and disadvantage, and reifies cultural myths that disadvantage and disempower us.

Oh yeah, it's also problematic because it justifies letting men who want to perve on us insist we can naked with them.

HOW DID TOU DO ALL THIS.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:07

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:38

I don't know them personally so how would I know?

But you do know Karen White is a rapist, yes?

So presumably you feel that being a rapist does not preclude one still having enough "commonalities" with the "average" woman to be a woman oneself?

DustyWindowsills · 22/09/2025 11:08

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:01

🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣

OMG AND I ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERED HOW THE BIGLY LETTERS WORK ON THE BEST POSSIBLE POST FOR IT

😆😅🤣😂😂🤣😅😆😆😅😅🤣😂😂🤣😅

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼🥳🥳🥳

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:09

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 10:59

You know what is also lying? Lying.

I have answered the question. Multiple times. Were there too many long words? Too much careful nuance?

I'll try again with bullets.

There are noticeable differences in behaviour at the population level between the group of male people and the group of female people

These overlap such that some male people have some behaviours culturally associated with female people and vice versa.

Some men want to change the definition of "woman" from simple sex to "people who share female associated commonalities of behaviour"

However, these "commonalities" as you call them are not a more meaningful way to think about "men" and "women" than simple body sex for several reasons:

Female biology still exists and has a material impact of women's lives

The social construction around the female body and how both men and women are socialised to think about ot react to it also has a material impact on women's lives.

The history of women's disempowerment and marginalisation is important for understanding women (original sex based meaning)'s social, economic, domestic and political position today.

Notably, the men who wish to define womanhood by behavioural "commonalities" rather than sex very notably feel it entirely proper that it is they, and not women ourselves, who get to define which "commonalities" are significant, often on an individual basis. Women's own experiences of womanhood and our opinions on whether we consider these "commonalities" to be the significant ones are neither sought nor considered relevant when given.

Therefore for women in particular, replacing social, cultural and political recognition of our sex under the word "woman" with a self identified "commonality" based on the intersection of (possibly) biological differences of behaviour and entirely culturally imposed ideas of "womanhood" is unacceptable because it takes out of our story the most significant causes of risk and disadvantage, and reifies cultural myths that disadvantage and disempower us.

Oh yeah, it's also problematic because it justifies letting men who want to perve on us insist we can naked with them.

Woah! Easy on the all caps….

Listen, you are making a categorical error here & assuming concepts are prescriptivist when they are in fact descriptive of reality. Psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities aren't an opinion or ideology, they are a fact. Now you can claim that fact undermines women's rights but they are still are a fact. And in fact, this fact being acknowledged doesn't undermine women's rights because competing rights can be managed. IE we can accept commonality but still require measures to prevent harm as we have. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:09

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:01

🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣

OMG AND I ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERED HOW THE BIGLY LETTERS WORK ON THE BEST POSSIBLE POST FOR IT

😆😅🤣😂😂🤣😅😆😆😅😅🤣😂😂🤣😅

Well done Flirts!!

And you found the way to use different sizes too.

Taztoy · 22/09/2025 11:09

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:09

Woah! Easy on the all caps….

Listen, you are making a categorical error here & assuming concepts are prescriptivist when they are in fact descriptive of reality. Psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities aren't an opinion or ideology, they are a fact. Now you can claim that fact undermines women's rights but they are still are a fact. And in fact, this fact being acknowledged doesn't undermine women's rights because competing rights can be managed. IE we can accept commonality but still require measures to prevent harm as we have. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It’s still a no to men in women’s single sex spaces. And the law in UK.

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:11

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:07

But you do know Karen White is a rapist, yes?

So presumably you feel that being a rapist does not preclude one still having enough "commonalities" with the "average" woman to be a woman oneself?

No because women can sexually assault women & still have psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities that associate them to the category of women.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 11:11

Beowulfa · 22/09/2025 11:05

Is "separatism" a new scoldy word to be used against all those unkind women who don't want to have to see cock in the changing rooms? Is it supposed to make us feel bad or something?

I think so.

It's not working.

AnSolas · 22/09/2025 11:11

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:01

🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣

OMG AND I ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERED HOW THE BIGLY LETTERS WORK ON THE BEST POSSIBLE POST FOR IT

😆😅🤣😂😂🤣😅😆😆😅😅🤣😂😂🤣😅

Share please🙃

lcakethereforeIam · 22/09/2025 11:12

Typical the poster who doesn't know the difference between men and women doesn't know the difference between biglies and capitals.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 11:17

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:11

No because women can sexually assault women & still have psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities that associate them to the category of women.

Ah yes.

The old 'but women do too' line except it's so vanishingly rare and even when it does happen tends to be with men. Hence why we are currently getting threads suggesting that women who walk around the women's changing rooms naked are the same as male flashers because they 'make some women feel uncomfortable' and we get women who look at these 'parading' women cast as voyeurists.

Except mate, none of the data really backs up the claim that women being sexual abusers is widespread...

So that 'argument' can piss off. It's nonsense

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:17

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 10:56

Look, they were definitely 'fishing' & fishing on MN for a reason as in taking the GC temperature on sepratism which is well studied social concern & not just for sex. I even suspect that facebook thread was by the same people because essentially its a question about the same topic. But big deal. Why not just say 'no, relax, that's not the purpose here' or 'what do you expect if sexual violence is so rampant' as i did instead of being so weirdly conspiratorially hostile.

Push back rationally for the sake of your own cause FFS!

Edited

FFS?

I don’t think I am the poster who lacks rational pushback on this thread. Perhaps you missed my post to the OP answering their question.

I also don’t think you can make accusations about hostility without showing the depth of your hypocrisy. What was it that women wanting single sex spaces were accused of by you - ‘anti-trans hysteria’ ?

It is almost like you have forgotten. Or are you just a completely different person now?

AnSolas · 22/09/2025 11:18

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:09

Woah! Easy on the all caps….

Listen, you are making a categorical error here & assuming concepts are prescriptivist when they are in fact descriptive of reality. Psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities aren't an opinion or ideology, they are a fact. Now you can claim that fact undermines women's rights but they are still are a fact. And in fact, this fact being acknowledged doesn't undermine women's rights because competing rights can be managed. IE we can accept commonality but still require measures to prevent harm as we have. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Bla bla bla

The common what ever has zero to do with single sex spaces.

If you cant justify why Karen White should/should not be let into women single sex spaces and Karen Whites stabbing victim should /should not be let into womens single sex spaces you have nothing except TRA/MRA to offer.

DustyWindowsills · 22/09/2025 11:20

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:17

FFS?

I don’t think I am the poster who lacks rational pushback on this thread. Perhaps you missed my post to the OP answering their question.

I also don’t think you can make accusations about hostility without showing the depth of your hypocrisy. What was it that women wanting single sex spaces were accused of by you - ‘anti-trans hysteria’ ?

It is almost like you have forgotten. Or are you just a completely different person now?

Howse is being super feminine today.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:22

DustyWindowsills · 22/09/2025 11:20

Howse is being super feminine today.

Ah. Yes. The feminine energy! I forgot that.

RedToothBrush · 22/09/2025 11:23

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.

Cough.

Guess what.

This conversation has only gone one way.

It is impossible to have this conversation and for it to go in any other direction.

Impossible.

All they have is MRA and TRA arguments along the lines of 'well some women abuse too'.

Except actually they don't. There is a miniscule number of cases (that usually involve men) that are exceptions. That's the point.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 22/09/2025 11:28

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:09

Woah! Easy on the all caps….

Listen, you are making a categorical error here & assuming concepts are prescriptivist when they are in fact descriptive of reality. Psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities aren't an opinion or ideology, they are a fact. Now you can claim that fact undermines women's rights but they are still are a fact. And in fact, this fact being acknowledged doesn't undermine women's rights because competing rights can be managed. IE we can accept commonality but still require measures to prevent harm as we have. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nope.

I'm entirely pragmatic.

For as long as being female bodied brings social and physical consequences, we need social and legal recognition for female people in our own right. We need to be clear about who we are, what happens to us and why it happens, the times it disadvantages us versus male people and the rights, protections and opportunities we need to mitigate that.

But if the risks and sexual encroachment and disadvantages and mistreatment and unfairness stopped, I'd be more than happy to give up the single sex supports.

Mate, if we no longer need them someday I'll be dancing in the fucking streets.

But here and now, being female does have these consequences so we do need them. Not because of average sexless commonalities of mind, but because of commonalities of sex.

Now if you also want similar social and legal recognition for the "people of average womanny commonalities" please go ahead and fight for it. Fill your boots. I won't stop you. I might even fight with you! As a Feminist I can see the benefits of separating "average womannyness of mind" from the actual lives and experiences of women.

But this is something that must exist beside womanhood, something separate from it not an appropriation of it. Women exist as embodied female people with all that brings. And until you can take that fact out of reality you cannot morally take it out of language and law.

I get that the fact that you are not a woman and have no experience of what I'm talking about is why you dismiss its relevance, but as someone who is and does, I am telling you you are wrong.

worksineducation · 22/09/2025 11:36

Yeah, whatever OP. I don't care what you think. Nor does the law.

Red nails it as usual

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.

Or in other words fuck off out of my daughter's changing room. It's a risk to her safety, dignity and privacy to have naked men in there. She also just doesn't want to share with men. Women say 'no'. The law agrees. The end.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:39

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:11

No because women can sexually assault women & still have psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities that associate them to the category of women.

What psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities do women share again?

And what psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities do women have with male people with the philosophical belief that they are not the sex they materially are that women don't also have with male people?

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:43

Howseitgoin · 22/09/2025 11:11

No because women can sexually assault women & still have psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities that associate them to the category of women.

Women who sexually assault women are female because they have the body type that is female. They belong to the female sex class due to their body formation -meaning they are woman because they are mature female people.

That they have psychological, behavioural and cultural commonalities with other female people is irrelevant as to whether they are 'women.'

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:47

Helleofabore · 22/09/2025 11:17

FFS?

I don’t think I am the poster who lacks rational pushback on this thread. Perhaps you missed my post to the OP answering their question.

I also don’t think you can make accusations about hostility without showing the depth of your hypocrisy. What was it that women wanting single sex spaces were accused of by you - ‘anti-trans hysteria’ ?

It is almost like you have forgotten. Or are you just a completely different person now?

Just to be clear Howsa , that bit about 'anti trans hysteria' was you very first post on this board. Would you like me to refer to the eye opening many posts that followed that one that were absolutely clear in the hostility you hold for women and for posters on this board?

As I said, it is almost like you have forgotten, expect that we have forgotten or are just a completely different person now.