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".

So you’re super feminine @Howseitgoin , and you’ve previously mentioned you’re also chock full of logic and rationale

on balance, taking all your personality traits into account, you consider yourself to be a woman

given that you consider the ‘personality test’ method of diving sex to be a known fact, could you outline the psychological, behavioural & cultural aspects of your personality that have led you to believe you’re a woman?

You know, one of the reasons why whenever I try to find reasons I might be wrong on this whole "sex matters too!" thing I conclude I'm not is because if we were to make Womanhood contingent on Howie's "commonalities of behaviour", I like many other women would no longer be a woman.

And yet all the sex based commonalities, the risks, challenges, frustrations and experiences I have shared with other women (in the original sex based meaning), and the clear lines I see between those experiences today and the social history of women both here and all over the world, would still have happened. That reality would not have gone away simply because the word "woman" was tugged off me.

And this is what leads me to conclude again and again that wherever men like Howie eventually end up in their demands to be seen as meaningfully different to other men, it cannot be used to replace the reality and significance of sex to women.

Actually, I think this would be excellent to know what aspects of someone's personality has led them to be categorised as a 'woman'.

I remember that male poster who assured us all it was his empathetic nurturing nature and that he really loved dresses and make up. But within a few pages, all that empathy and nurturing had disappeared because he didn't like being told that didn't make him the woman he demanded to be treated as.

Then we had had the ones who say it is undefinable but they feel that they are woman and have done since they were children. And because they had felt they were girls, then obviously they reacted to the world as girls and therefore had always lived as if they were a girl or a woman. While never actually navigating and interacting with the world with the body of a female person. So, they could have been feeling just like a boy/man and wouldn't have known it.

Indeed.

The thing is that the "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" exercise is just a Venn diagram exercise. It is irrelevant.

Because the only commonality that truly defines whether someone is female or not is their body formation. And even if their body is not producing the gametes that it was designed to produce, that too is a shared experience with other female people that is uniquely female.

Discussing "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" is only ever a philosophical discussion that is designed to leverage some male people into the female sex category and vice versa. It also relies on philosophical theories, such as postmodernism.

Opening the discussion is then supposed to allow some people to be convinced that the impossible can indeed be possible and plausible. There is also the emotional wheedling as well as the aggressive trying to force the message to be accepted. All because some male people demand to be treated as if they are female people.

And some of them will use whatever means possible. Wheedling. Aggression. Trying to rationalise through twisted logic and contortions. Or all three at once, or in cycles.

I'm not sure what it is that you think " legitimises" the existence of trans identified people?

You seem to believe that being male or female is rooted in behaviour or psychological profile. It isn't. Sex is rooted in the body, in the biological function: the chromosomal formation and the subsequent unfolding of that blue-print.

Nobody disputes that there are people who exist that believe they are the opposite sex.....but they are wrong. You cannot be the opposite sex to that which you are no matter how many hormones you ingest. In fact, taking cross sex hormones in large amounts is not conducive to the good health of a body not naturally designed to be receptive to them.

Something either exists or it doesn't. 'Legitimate' has got nothing to do with it.
If a trans identified male person was really a female person then they wouldn't be 'trans' would they? The whole concept of 'trans' is suggestive of a movement between one state to another.......but that is only possible at the level of imagination and psychology...and not at a physical/biological level. A male cannot become a female.

if your definition of 'legitimacy' is one in which people believe exactly what you say or tell them, regardless of what the the measurable evidence and facts say to the contrary, then no, there can be no legitimacy unless there is a universal acceptance of your premise. There isn't.

Commonalities exist because we are all human...regardless of our Sex.

But because of female socialisation, women can't always say what they think and the fact that you don't understand this is part of the problem - if you have been raised male you don't have the same attitude to sticking your neck out in a group. You assume that women will say no if they think that. But they won't.

I suggest that anyone categorising a human into a sex class using "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" is going to be making a fuckton of category errors.

There is a reason it is not used to categorise humans by sex class. It is meaningless as a categorisation tool because one set of "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" simply will not include the majority within one sex class while excluding people from the other sex class.

To continue to refer to this as a meaningful way to categorise humans is clearly someone trying to find the 'in' that will allow them to be included in one sex class when they are the opposite sex class. It is just another form of wheedling.

Gay men quite often share some characteristics and superficial adaptations most commonly associated with women. That does not make gay men women though. It simply means quite a number might have good taste and be interested in home interiors or fashion and design and so on; or that they may be very 'camp' - expressing mannerisms that are deemed 'girly'.

It’s always interesting reading posts by men who enjoy role playing as women arguing for their continued access to women’s spaces (and by extension to the women within them). They have a different character to posts by women who argue for men in women’s spaces because they see themselves as trans allies or because they identify as trans.

while both sides of the coin are inherently irrational, the men simply cannot be reasoned with, while maintaining an air of superiority. They display no empathy for women, and almost invariably no awareness that women are real people even. The posts themselves tell you everything you need to know about why women still need single sex spaces.

These men can see nothing beyond what they want. Thank goodness the law is there to control them

I’ve been pondering this thread all morning. It’s irked me that the desire for women to have spaces away from men is described as “separatism” and some on the thread have said they’re fine with men around.

It just boils down to the fact we want the choice to have spaces apart from men. And if something is slated as women only it means just that.

Start all the mixed sex groups you want for all sorts of things. That’s fine and desirable. No one here wants ALL spaces to be single sex.

And when it comes to toilets and healthcare and prisons etc, when women are at their most vulnerable, then absolutely they should be separated.

Yep very much so. The women usually make reference to opposing arguments even if it's to disagree. The men just groundhog day with the same old assertions like all the times the opposing arguments have been made directly to them on previous threads hadn't happened.

And yet you still can't tell me a single commonality that I share with Karen White or explain why you think that means he should be allowed to use the same toilets and changing rooms as me when he is eventually released from prison.

Let's not forget though, that for some those male people who post on the feminist boards to argue they (or other male people) should be treated as if they are female, the very act of posting here is part of the attraction. That act of posting, knowing that they are posting on what is predominantly a female space, is a major part of the attraction. That they come and post with misogynistic views adds to the experience. I suspect it is even better when they maintain that they are female posters. Remember the midnight misogynist posters.

Being a male person telling female people what to do and feeling like they are shaping female people's reactions must be a very attractive thing.

Of course we know that for some male people accessing female people's spaces is all about doing so knowing that there is little that the female people in that space will do to remove them. It is an act of intimidation and it is abusive.

There are many reasons for male people to ignore female people's boundaries. And I am yet to see one valid reason why it is of benefit to women and girls to allow these male people to let even one ignore those boundaries.

Well the qualities you ascribed to women in the other thread yesterday were "very feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual".

How many of these qualities do you think Karen White, Isla Bryson and Katie Dolatowski, who are currently behind bars for rape and sexual assault, or Sarah Jane Baker, who served 30 years in prison for kidnapping, torture and attempted murder, possess?

It was quite freeing really when I realised that these men can never be made to show any consideration for women, so there’s no point fretting about it.

by definition they have extremely disordered thinking about women. I’m a stranger on the internet, I can’t change that.

They are free to believe whatever bollocks they like. And that’s good and right. we have to ensure that there are laws and social consequences in place to control any disordered behaviour that may arise from their disordered thinking.

exploring their weird views with them on here is also helpful, for the purposes of ensuring that as many people as possible understand what these men are like

Here is the other issue about using "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" as being in any way 'meaningful' to categorise a person's sex class.

What happens when a person with a transgender identity detransitions? Which "psychological, behavioural & cultural" aspects are then changed with this detransition? Belief in their identity changes. What else?

So why the fuck are we being told that "psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" is in any way a meaningful method for categorising a person's sex class? Someone's transgender identity can change. Someone's "psychological & behavioural" profile changes over time too. Sometimes it changes due to illness.

And yet, we are seeing it wheeled out as some kind of 'fact' to categorise people for single sex provisions, even groups? Really? Is that really what this whole discussion has been about?

Because I couldn't give a fuck if a male person, who has someone else's criteria of stereotypical 'female' interests, attitudes and behaviour, wants to join a group that is for female people only. That male person should go find a mixed sex group and be who he wants to be there. That male person's interests, attitudes and behaviour are irrelevant when the group is for female people only.

Because I can assure people that "psychological & behavioural" profile of my parent with dementia changed considerably ... yet... they did not change sex and they would not have been excluded from any single sex space or group for their sex. Changeable factors are not abiding 'facts'.

There is no way to philosophise this categorisation method into being a 'fact'.

I think "compulsion" might be a more accurate term than "attraction".

For at least some of these men, I think they can no more stop posting here than they can give up their "woman" persona. It's all linked.

It is a good point. But in my mind 'attraction' suits the posters I had in mind.

I am very happy to add that though to the list. It could be a very long list, we could be here for a while.

I just read back. We are now being told it is for our very own good to not have single sex 'spaces' (ie those not needed strictly for safety) because it means that male people will treat women badly.

You cannot make this up.

This is a form of absolutism, I think. No one has said that all spaces/groups should be segregated by sex. That could be considered a valid discussion point for 'separatism'. Yet, no one is arguing for that.

However, the warning that any spaces/groups that exclude male people may increase male people's poor treat of female people is dire. This is absolutism and catastrophisation. The argument is basically saying that any groups that exclude male people will result in poor outcomes for female people so therefore don't allow any single sex groups/spaces that exclude the male people who demand access.

Gosh..... how about male people just don't negatively discriminate against female people where it is illegitimate and stay out of any female single sex provision.

It really is not that hard. No need to wheedle, threaten, anything. Just respect female people and their needs.

Quite.

How about they just obey the law.

If men being excluded from some things means they treat women badly, those men who would behave like that need urgent intervention.

Exactly.

Any groups that exclude male people will result in poor outcomes for female people so therefore don't allow any single sex groups/spaces that exclude the male people who demand access.

This is a version of 'you made me do it!'.

In this version it is 'you excluded me, you made me treat you poorly! you shouldn't have had a space without allowing me to be in it'.

Sounds a lot like an abuser's reasoning to my mind because, of course, there is a power difference between female people and the male people who have the power who use this type of argument.

The answer that this should always be 'no, you are still not included'.