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".

Bad behaviour by men is the beginning, middle and end of this sorry debacle

At an individual level yes, but there's also the population level consequence that exactly because women have spaces where men cannot go and activities men cannot witness, those spaces and activities become fetished by men and the act of transgressing those boundaries becomes exciting in its own right.

It is a catch 22. The existence of single sex protections is also part of the reason we need them.

But that need still exists. We can't just get rid of them.

This is of course one possible benefit of adding gender neutral (ie mixed sex) provisions alongside single sex : that if enough female people who don't care about sharing with men (and we know they exist as they come here to tell us) use the gender neutral options maybe female activities that are currently fetishised will become everyday and unremarkable, just as no one finds ankles or shoulders scandalous any more.

But that will make people like me collateral damage.

I'm starting to wonder if posters who tell us that we silly TERFs should be careful what we wish for come from a very socially conservative (perhaps religious?) family background. That is, they have seen first-hand the subjugation of women by a patriarchy, but they haven't realised that the alternative is not simply a free-for-all in which women accept enormous risks in return for agency and freedom. They don't know that it is indeed possible to set boundaries and expect them to be respected, and that this is not a slippery slope to separatism. Put another way, they don't know much about feminism because they didn't grow up with it.

To be very clear, as long as there is a need for single sex spaces, we should keep them.

Only if and when men's behaviour is such that no woman is threatened, feels unsafe, or even just feels inhibited or marginalised by their presence should we consider they are no longer needed.

Hmm I am reminded of this quote by an American girl who wants to use the gender neutral toilets in her school:

‘The gender-neutral bathrooms are both horrible and amazing. I am so glad we have them, but they are disgusting, mostly because of the way students treat them. The issue mainly comes from how small and how few they are, and it’s not uncommon that the four small bathrooms are filled with sex, drugs or vaping. We need to address these problems, or the gender-neutral bathrooms will continue to be the most disgusting in the school.
I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.’

Her solution: ‘is converting a bathroom on the other side of each floor into a gender-neutral bathroom. The sex and vaping that is currently concentrated in just four gender neutral bathrooms would be spread between six bathrooms instead.’

I like using these quotes because the latest DfE guidance for secondary schools in this country recommended a ‘gender-neutral’ private toilet on each level like the set up in this American high school.

I suppose I should be grateful.

He told plenty of lies in his police interview but he never claimed to be female so at least that’s something.

<wry chuckle>

Are you holding women responsible for men’s behaviour???
“enabling” and “assisting” is not the same as being the perpetrator.

“likely assisted by” where is your evidence for this? It’s just your opinion.

Why are you so determined to make out that women are as much of a danger to other women as men are?

It is simply not statistically true.

Why are you minimising men’s propensity to sexual assault?

Quite. A need and a wish. Women are entitled to wishes and preference too.

The job of a women's single sex space is to be inclusive and accessible to all women. Not to exclude, shame, harass and deride women out of it in order to make men happy. Not to provide an experience for men. Not to be a vehicle for men's gender expression.

I don't know I feel about it all still, I got so burned out on the whole subject I had to leave mumsnet for a while but felt the compulsion to come back.

I go back and forth: yes I think single sex is important but I don't know if I feel like excluding medically transitioning people from them (i.e TW from female spaces and TM from males spaces) is correct because I don't believe most of them are doing any harm and it makes sense if that's the side they're transitioning to. But I also know there ARE some who are and out of safety/dignity I would prefer to keep them out.

I don't know if I think it's right or wrong for a trans woman to share a space with me, I don't have an issue with the odd trans woman using the same toilet as me as frankly as much as people seem to think they're multiplying like rabbits, it's rare I even notice anybody in a toilet I would even think might be trans but I also don't speak for everyone. And I think other spaces and areas are a bit more sensitive.

I don't know why it has to be so difficult.

It doesn't. It's actually very simple.

There's no such thing as 'transitioning'. From what to what? Humans can't change sex.

On what grounds would women give up their single sex spaces for this one small group of men?

Less than 8% of males actually 'medically transition' (by that I presume you mean have genital surgery ie removing their penis and testicles). And, a question for you; how do we know who has and who hasn't? Do we do genital inspections? No, so the easiest way is to exclude all males.

Secondly, in the same way a de-nutted male dog is still a male dog, a human male who has had his penis amputated is still a male. He still has male height, he still has male strength. He still has male socialisation. He has never gone from a girl and gotten periods growing into a woman. He has no lived experience as the oppressed female sex. There is nothing remotely female about him. And his presence (as he will still be recognisably male, as they all are) will cause distress to women and girls.

Hence why all males, no matter the extremely rare ones who 'medically transition' need to be excluded by of their male advantage, male socialisation and the distress they cause on sight.

I knew a few transsexuals in the 80s/90s and I also have an adult child who transitioned (which is why i initially joined mumsnet in the past), I don't consider that you change sex but that you become either a trans woman or trans man so it's not the same as before but you haven't changed sex. I don't know exactly what it makes them except a transsexual. So that's what I think transitioning is, I'm not a doctor or a biologist so I don't know much more than that.

I don't think women should give up their spaces to men much like men shouldn't give up theirs to us. But I also don't know about excluding TW entirely from all spaces because I don't see them as men but I have of course seen all the bad things that come from their side and the pisstakers and creeps that have taken over and I think the ideology has overridden so many things so honestly I just don't know now. I find it hard to see everything in black and white but grey areas are hard to work around.

So how do I know the difference between your sorts of trans women?

I NEED single sex spaces. Because if male violence towards me - rape and SA.

Why can I not have what I’m LAWFULLY entitled to? What is it about this law that means it isn’t to be obeyed?

Some things are black and white though.

Sex is one of them. Regardless of how you see them, they are men. They are born men and will die men. Scientific fact.

We need facts as a means of ordering society. We cannot depend on classifications based on how you, personally, feel. Surely you can see that?

I ask you again, on what grounds (beyond your feelings) would women allow this one group of men into their single sex spaces?

It's hard to know the difference and that's what leaves me really conflicted about trans women/or those that claim to be so now because I see alot things that are much worse to before and perhaps I missed a great deal!

I understand the need for them I do and I'm horrified that you've been through those things because I also have been through them myself. I'm not going to tell you to 'get on with it' about TW in our spaces or how you should feel about it, you feel how you feel about it.

I've read so many interpretations of all these things that my head is spinning on the SC ruling still and I suppose thats why I chose to come back again.

I mean, my husband is a really nice guy. I can vouch for him.

If he said he wanted access to women's spaces, I know he wouldn't hurt anyone.

That's true of many men. Including many vulnerable men.

But that doesnt mean they should be granted access to spaces that arent theirs. For many reasons.

Firstly, just because I can vouch for him, doesn't mean anyone else has to go along with that.

Secondly, if we grant access to him, how do we justify not granting access to other men?

Thirdly, how is anyone supposed to know who 'officially' has access and who doesn't?

Exactly the same applies to men who 'identify' as women.

Granting some men access to women's single sex spaces is totally unworkable and ultimately very disrespectful to women's needs.

What are you unclear about with regards to the SC ruling? It's very clear.

Trans women may have sneaked in quietly in the past but there were relatively few of them, they tried to "pass", they knew it was wrong. Compare with today - numbers have exploded, they don't always try to pass, and they have a huge sense of entitlement.

Also, we CAN'T know the difference.

So either you decide to protect women like @Taztoy amd others like her. Or you decide to throw her under the bus to prioritise men. There isn't any nice compromise between the two positions here.

I think that's where alot of my conflict is. The sense of entitlement now as opposed to just trying to quietly go un-noticed in society in general and navigating the world however they could.

I accept that generally I'm quite stuck in the past and have often tried to avoid media as much as possible but I see so much now I can't ignore.

It was still wrong though. It was still disrespectful to the women whose spaces were being used without their permission or consent.

I am also a woman like Taztoy who has been raped and SA'd. Do you consider my conflict on this issue to me throwing myself under the bus also to prioritise men? Because I don't wish to prioritise men.

I accept my conflict probably comes from the grey area in how I view transsexuals. I just see them as transsexuals who need to navigate the way things already are, as opposed to changing the world for them.

The SC clarified the legal position. Which is. That those men should never have been allowed into women’s single sex spaces.

what about this law makes it ok to break? If we are breaking this law, does that mean the next one they’re going to come after is, say, drunk driving. Or murder. Or rape. Let’s just decide we don’t like those laws and stop obeying them. Sure that’s grand. It’s how I feel about it.

NO. And again for those at the back and the hard of hearing. NO. I SAY NO.

I SAY NO

Now. Please can you tell me why you’d override that no illegally? And then tell me if you see the comparison with my rape and how it isn’t a consent violation. Thank you.

I don't disagree with you nor agree with it, I never had a strong feeling about it in the past.