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".

Sure, nobody is required to do a damn thing that might help stop someone else’s criminal activity…even before it happens. 'That's their own problem even if we have to live with consequences so be it, big daddy gov will just have to make a special safe space for us…oh wait we need everyone else to help us for that'….

There's this thing called Social Responsibility we all benefit from. This is smelling more & more like separatism…

I get that. I do.

I just can’t believe that human being has so little concern for others.

But anyhoo. My article that I’m writing and editing with my lady brain needs my attention.

At a certain stage one has to assume that the attraction for some is in trying to insult and upset women, I'm afraid.

There is no ‘categorical error’ in using body formation to define the boundaries of the sex classes for single sex spaces.

You are the person trying to wedge in male people into the female sex category.

And duh! Individualism is why you cannot categorise sex classes based on “psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" for the purpose of single sex provisions (or any other purpose really) . I and others have been telling you that for days. Particularly individualism that is based on changeable aspects.

Oh good Lord. It doesn't determine their sex, does it. If it did, every violent human would be male, and every non-violent human would be female.

We don't have any social responsibility to put ourselves in danger so cross dressing men can feel included.

They have a social responsibility to stay the fuck out of women's spaces.

@Taztoysome men are evil and have no respect for women and it’s always a shock - their arrogance and blind stupidity and that makes them dangerous

i suggest you write your report in a nice pink ink with a sweet curly font and don’t put anything in unless you can reference a man who said it first. All examples should be based around men please.

And duh! Individualism is why you cannot categorise sex classes based on “psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities" for the purpose of single sex provisions (or any other purpose really)

How would this even work @Howseitgoin ?

What are these psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities?

How do they manifest?

What objective criteria do we use to determine who displays them?

How is that determined? By who?

How frequently do they need to be displayed? What if there's a slip up?

How do you account for cultural differences (ie things that are more male coded in one culture, more female in another?)

Can the designation be changed? How?

DARVO in action.

We live in societies that do put in place rules to stop bad/criminal behaviour before it happens. The UK has perhaps more, or at least different, rules than the US. Here you can Jay walk but you can't carry a gun. We both have laws on speeding. We can certainly have laws to prevent men from harming women. Your wish to do what suits you and never mind anyone else's rights is individualism gone crazy. Of course we can try to prevent sexual offending by giving women single sex spaces. Like the people who want to drive at whatever speed they want, this infuriates you, but tough luck.

The categorical error you are making here is that it's not the act but the inclination that matters. A man in drag's motivation isn't the same as a trans person. But a trans person's inclination is the same as a CIS person's. Organic motivations are hardly superficial.

Taz, I hope you're okay and able to take 5 minutes to do something grounding. A walk or five minutes outside, feel the air on your face. Even a bit of deep breathing. Sending you my best.

I mentioned how the OPs discussion of separatism reminded me of 2 influential toilet designers.

The following links should come with trigger warnings for anyone who has been assaulted. There are line drawings of disembodied penises and ‘everting’ vaginal pockets and how the shape of them reminds the author of a street map which might upset. There’s also mention of concentration camps and phobic feminist fantasies. The second article is easier to comprehend.

These are articles from two influential American designers of gender-neutral toilets, whose body of work is ‘evidence’ and referenced for ‘inclusive’ design for many schools, public buildings and even the government-funded U.K. public toilet consultation for people with long term health conditions (for Document T):

Professor Susan Stryker: https://aaa.org.hk/en/like-a-fever/like-a-fever/on-stalling-and-turning-a-wayward-genealogy-for-a-binary-abolitionist-public-toilet-project/type/essays

Professor Joel Sanders: https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/profiles-and-interviews/interview-with-joel-sanders

These ‘inclusive’ designs have NOT been analysed in-situ (Sanders admitted this in Spring 2024). I have read a lot of their work and their two opinions why safety is ‘improved’ are that more people (‘good’ people?) will be around the private toilets to notice and that an adult and a child of different sex can go in together. I can give lots of real life examples to debunk both these opinions, where the design has had tragic outcomes.

Their designs are categorically not about safety. These two have earned a lot of money lecturing around the world about inclusive design. I can dismantle their ideas about ‘inclusivity’ and demonstrate, with lots of real life evidence, their designs are for healthy men. There are safety implications for every other demographic.

The effect on women is the same if a man is present. We dgaf about the particular nuance of his motivation.

If you could grasp how little we care about why a man is disrespecting boundaries, you may get a glimmer of understanding. But that would require empathy.

So that I can be blamed for men raping me? As you said?

Personality traits aren't 'feels' but a biologically influenced reality.

The act of him raping me fecking matters.

The act of him putting his hands round my throat until I pissed myself and passed out fecking matters.

I see you.

I can see that, and also how it fits with Kathleen Stock's speculation that the thing the current violent illusion-fantasy fascists hated so much about Charlie Kirk was that he had accepted adulthood, clothes, responsibilities, sexuality and all . . .

grown-ups baaad . . .

The personality trait to rape is a solely male trait. Biologically influenced reality right there.

Says the foreign bloke on a UK feminist forum for the sole purpose of being here to harass women wanting to talk about laws that affect them, protect themselves from abuse and improve the lives of women generally.

Ok then.

I see self awareness runs deep.

Oh yeah, male & female discussions are just soooo identical…Just ask Trump!

Their motivation doesn't matter. We can't govern access to single sex spaces based on someone's motivation.

It doesn't matter why he is wearing a skirt and lipstick, he is still not a woman and cannot come into women's spaces.

Well Done.

Men rape.
Women don't. They don't have penises.

Man sexually abuse at a rate which is huge.
Women don't. The number of offenders is tiny, and where it happens, often it is aiding a male.

Personality traits aren't 'feels' but a biologically influenced reality.

Which is why we don't want male in female spaces.

I don't give a fiddlers about other people's motivations. I want them to act with civility.