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".

If I remember rightly in t'old days when there were, compared with today, very few men 'transitioning' doctors (who were nearly all men) told transsexual men that part of proving their wish to be a woman included using women's spaces like toilets

of course no one at any point thought to ask women if they minded about this.....

If you've been raped, then I would be more surprised to see you prioritise men over what @Taztoy needs and is legally entitled to.

Just because people have their own issues shouldnt give them Carte Blanche to discount other people's rights. If your friends need third spaces to 'navigate' their world then they should be campaigning for them. And leaving women's rights alone.

Fair enough, neither did I, because I was only very dimly aware of it.

But now that I am more aware, I can see it for what it is.

Exactly, which says it all really

You keep saying 'prioritise men'. I've not said I wish to priorise men or even TW over women like Taztoy and myself. I've said that I'm conflicted on the subject much like I have been over the entire trans rights debate. I'm certainly not a TRA but neither strongly GC.

So please don't jump to assume my experiences or viewpoint. I wouldn't do so with you or anyone else.

what about this law makes it ok to break?

The fact that it is for the benefit of women and not men.

@IHatePapaya There is a simple way to tell the difference between decent transwomen and the boundary-pushing ones.

The decent ones will understand that the law has been clarified, even if they used female single-sex spaces before, they will now use male single-sex spaces or unisex ones.

The non-decent, boundary-pushers will out themselves as the very males who should not be in female single-sex spaces by using them now that the law has been clarified.

By even considering these men have some kind of claim - 'you're conflicted - to things that obviously don't belong to them - you are prioritising them.

If you weren't, you'd simply conclude that men should stay out of women's spaces. 🤷‍♀️

Exactly.

Also. This.

It's not difficult.

You cannot transition from male to female or vice versa. So "female" is not the side they are transitioning to. It is the side we are on and they are not.

You cannot allow harmless trans identifying men into women's spaces whilst keeping the dangerous ones out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Karen Whites and Isla Brysons of this world. Because nobody is standing guard on toilet doors, checking whether they are a nice trans woman who wouldn't harm a fly, or a violent male predator looking to exploit a societal loophole in order to abuse women.

You cannot allow trans identifying men with gender recognition certificates into women's spaces whilst keeping trans identifying men without gender recognition certificates out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Eddie/Suzie Izzards of this world. Because nobody is standing guard on toilet doors, checking whether they have a magical piece of paper saying they are legally a woman, or whether it's just a case of "on Wednesdays, we wear pink!"

You cannot allow trans identifying men who have had their penises removed into women's spaces whilst keeping trans identifying men who have retained their male genitalia out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Grace Laverys (author of "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Penis") of this world. Because nobody is standing on guard on toilet doors, checking whether their penis has been turned inside out, or whether they're still proudly sporting the full meat and two veg.

Which brings me to...

You cannot allow trans identifying men of any kind into women's spaces whilst keeping non trans identifying men out. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in, including the Levi Bellfields and Vincent Tabaks of this world. Because if all you have to do to gain access to women's spaces is claim to identify as a woman (and, as per the above, it's not practical to use any other criteria), well, any man can claim to be a woman at any time and for any reason.

So the answer is very simple.

We don't allow any of them in.

It doesn't matter how nice or nasty they are, whether they are soft and harmless or a violent convicted criminal, it doesn't matter whether they really believe they identify as women or are just trying it on, whether they almost "pass" or whether they look like a pig in a wig, it doesn't matter how sad they feel not to be included or how uncomfortable they feel in men's toilets.

They are not women, so they can't come in.

@RedToothBrush can see how many people click the 'agree' react button on her posts. No self-importance, and not an opinion. She knows.

I know what you mean. I do from time to time think "is it really that much of a problem to let some trans women, the most transitioned, the least harmful [yes I realise "least harmful" is in no way a given just because "most transitioned", and indeed what does "most transitioned" mean anyway, but bear with me...] use some women's spaces, if that's all it is, if they accept it's not sports or reserved roles or communal nudity, is it really so bad?...

But my thought process always comes back to this:

Do I believe some men are in any meaningful way actually more like women than other men?

Well no. I believe that's a sexist and reductive way of thinking. Women and girls aren't a set of behaviours or a presentation that a man can adopt, we are simply female humans. So I am very uncomfortable going down a route where society even slightly condones the suggestion that some men are closer to being women than others.

Ok, so these men aren't really women. But they are vulnerable and harmless so why not accept them as "not women, but under women's protection"?

Sounds better.... but then again lots of men are vulnerable and harmless. Why should these ones and these ones only get the privilege of using women's protections?

Um - I guess because these are the only ones who claim to be women so the question only comes up for them?

But that's just back to accepting that a man's claim to be a woman because of his mind or presentation has weight in the real world. In reality he's no more like a woman than any other man so he doesn't have any more claim than any other man.

How about dignity? If a trans woman has to use male facilities it's humiliating for him because people who assumed he was a woman now realise he is a man. Could be dangerous. Definitely embarassing.

I guess - but is that not kind of on him for deceiving people? Is it really fair to expect women to play along with his deception? Why should the dangers he creates for himself through dishonesty justify giving him a privilege that honest men do not have?

And so it goes. Whenever I think it through looking for a less harsh line, I just come back to there being no reason to treat them as women and not men that doesn't come down to sexism, collusion in a deception or unfair favouring of one group of vulnerable men over all the others.

Papaya, I can imagine it is very hard if you have a child who is affected by the issues.

Women need our rights, we fought for them because we need them. If we allow some men to use these rights, then we no longer have them, because they are not women's rights anymore, but the rights of anyone who wants them. I don't mean this as an abstract point, either.

If we need single sex spaces, services, and rights, then they need.to be single sex.

The problem is always going to be, to take pity on a few special fragile sad men who have done enough that you feel they deserve the prize of access to undressed women -

is that you have to send some women out of women's spaces and leave them with nothing. No one's going to give them third spaces (and men would demand access to them if they did.)

Why would you believe that a sad man should have freedom of choice and be granted access to undressed women, and that this matters more than the access of some women to anything at all, unless you in fact value men more than you do women?

And this has already been destruction tested. The GRA WAS this compromise - a few special fully transitioned men. And men did what men as a sex class do, and we ended up with men wanking in cubicles with open doors and waving swords while shouting at women that they couldn't stop them. There is no way to gatekeep. If it's one man, it's all men. All the hours and pages of the SC court judgment and the cases before it go into all this in great depth. It was tried. Men broke it. It does not and cannot ever work for women. And women matter just as much as sad men do.

I have also yet to find anywhere in any human rights documentation that being provided with access to non consenting women in a state of undress is a 'right' for any man, sad or not.

If you care about inclusion - you have to care equally about inclusion of men and of women.

If you care about kindness - you have to care equally about being kind to men and to women.

If you care about access and equality - you have to care equally about it for men and for women.

Otherwise you're merely arguing for male supremacism but chickening out of owning it.

And I guess to @IHatePapaya 's final comment "I don't know why it has to be so difficult", it doesn't really. Saying "men in the men's, women in the women's" should be the easiest thing in the world.

What is difficult is when you step away from that simple model to find a way that lets you pretend it's still "men in the men's, women in the women's" while allowing a handful of men into the ladies so they can enjoy feeling the spirit of the ladies as well.

It doesn’t have to be difficult. Everyone uses the facilities relevant to their sex. What could be simpler? The only people making it difficult are those who think they are special and the law shouldn’t apply to them.

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

i say no. As the law allows me to. And that’s it. The law has been clarified and it says no men in the women’s single sex spaces and no women in the men’s.

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

Why do men find it so difficult to respect women or allow us autonomy?

It doesn't matter whether you think medically transitioned transwomen should be treated differently than ones who have not.

Unfortunately the ECHR had a ruling some time ago where medical transition couldn't be a requirement to transition because some individuals medically couldn't have those surgeries because of medical reasons.

So you can't treat non medically transition trans women differently from a medically transitioned transwoman.

You tell me.

Please explain why women seek the company of women other than for safety? Why the desire if their discussions aren't any different from men's? Because their conversations only ever limited to their 'biological realities'?

Reality isn't convenient is it?

@IHatePapaya it makes sense if that's the side they're transitioning to

It makes no sense, there are no 'sides' involved, 'Sides' implies some voluntary choice, as in a game. This is about sex, there from conception, there in every cell, unchangeable by drugs or surgery.

It is not difficult, It is the easiest thing in the world.

I don’t “seek the company of other women” for safety.

I seek the company of a space where there are no men because men are not safe for me to be around.

See the difference?

I don’t seek the company of other women.

The law of the land in which I live (the U.K.) allows for single sex spaces where there are reasonable under the equality act. (Short summary - I could write a whole essay on it). As such, single sex spaces lawfully exist and I use them as I am entitled to do.