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".

hahah!!

We all got that? We must let men into our spaces based on what they want,

I mean it's very funny, but it's also very scary that there are many men out there who truly believe this.

"But it's what I want".

Yeah?

No.

How are personality traits objectively measured?

Mate, you don't have any idea what women talk about when you're not there. It's never, ever happened to you and never will.

At last he has said what I've been saying all along though.

There is literally no reason for these men to be in women's spaces that does not ultimately boil down to "because it's what they want".

And as a society we need to normalise saying that it's perfectly fine for these men not to get what they want.

If that is all you took from that post, it is really a sign of your blindness to how abusive to women your point under discussion really is.

These are your words:

“I have had the same concerns in terms of the gender critical movement moving towards separatism as that undermines the feminist project. I think it’s spawning from the idea that women would endure less direct misogyny in a separatist-minded spaces, but the problem is when men are separated from women, they become even more misogynistic. They then have even less incentive to hire women or vote for women.”

Maybe take a moment to read this section of your post and read our comments about why this is abusive and try to understand what we are pointing out.

If you feel there is context in the post that I have missed, feel free to discuss it. I have read it back a few times to make sure I wasn’t misreading it. However, from your further interactions I don’t believe I have misinterpreted your words.

Just to be clear, you own posts are confirming to me that you believe that no female only group should exist outside of those necessary for safety because female people have a “Social Responsibility” that we all benefit from. Is that right?

That the “Social Responsibility” is to never have a female single sex group that excludes male people. Ever. Despite the fact that most female people interact with male people all day long. Despite the fact that most female people interact in family groups and socially with male people everyday.

Your personal definition of this “Social Responsibility” is that there should be no aspects of life that make people are excluded from unless it is only for safety. Because female people need to be open access so male people know how to treat female people with respect?

Is that correct?

Totally.

it really is eye opening to watch the meltdown when they don't get what they want.

'Inclination' has got nothing to do with material and observable reality.
Men with trans identities spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on performing femininity, on selecting clothes and on choosing hairstyles etc It is always very consciously put together - and this is more than apparent to the casual observer. I see such men around in my city all of the time and the incongruence is immediately apparent within a split second of sight.

Both drag and being a 'femme' performing trans identified man share the same set of processes for assuming 'a female identity'.The wives of men who have taken their cross dresssing full time talk of how much time and money and emotional energy is spent on perfecting their look; on buying underwear etc Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner talks of how it takes hours for him to get ready in the morning.

None of this intention or inclination turns a man into a woman in any meaningful sense. You clearly do not realise how deeply insulting it is to suggest that being female/a woman is nothing but an intentional performance or set of expressions.

By a 'Maleometer'.

A maleometer can not be questioned. Its an empty box with the words 'all males must be listened to and taken at face value'.

Its like something out of a fantasy novel based on Orwellian observations.

😂

'Personality traits' bring to mind the old saying about opinions.

Polite version:

They are like armpits, everyone has them and some of them stink.

Wash regularly, use deodorant, don't stick them in people's faces.

If you want to compare and contrast, look at my evidence-based arguments on toilet design compared to Stryker’s I posted earlier. One of us is earning a lot of money from promoting their (exclusionary) ‘inclusive’ design, the other is earning nothing but campaigning for safe design.

Read as much as possible and critically analyse them, basing your conclusions on real-life evidence.

You have reached incoherency stage again.

This rabbit hole into personality traits is hilarious.

It's mind blowing, really. Not only has he decided that men should have access based on wanting it, he's also decided that he gets to restrict access to those men on the basis of his made up criteria.

Drag queens, nooo, Howsit, yesss.

honestly, I've said it before, the only bloody way men are the oppressors is because of the brawn, because it sure ain't the brain

MN is the first place that recognised this and started calling it toddler behaviour and children unable to cope with the word No.

Which is why we keep saying it, and why someone is having a meltdown on this thread because we aren't budging.

Its a regressive thing isn't it? Mothers are used to saying no to children and these are men who hate the concept of mothers and motherhood because they represent everything they can't be. Many have mothers who they have since bullied into submission as they have reached adulthood as part of a display of dominance over women. They hate women.

You can feel how much they hate women. They want to 'become' women so they can destroy women and everything women have. It is nihilistic culture. Its manipulative and abusive.

We see it for what it is. It is NOT passive.

Blimey, I've read some tedious old shite on this forum over the years, but the line that men need access to women's changing rooms so they don't become misogynists is a new one. What a winning argument!

Inclinations now is it? Oh. Aye!

So now it is motivations that categorise who should and should not access female single sex provisions of any type.

Except the motivation of a male person demanding access to a female single sex provision is certainly not like the motivation of the female people who need that provision.

This is more wheedling. The answer is still no.

🤣😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣😅😅

I guess me and my female friends are all blokes then!

Oh Howie, you utter utter dumbass! 🤣

Has it never occurred to you that these are exactly the sort of topics women do arrange women-only clubs and sessions for? Exactly because so many men assume, like you, that we have so little interest in such things that if we are for some unfathomable reason talking about them we must be in need of male guidance.

Sometimes we need a space without men to talk about stereotypically "male" topics so we can get a word in without all the men who are triggered to mansplain at us 😆

(Or in the case of porn, to either aggressively tell us why we are wrong to object to the dehumanisation and brutalisation of female bodies for thrills and profit, or to get sweaty palmed at the thought of us enjoying it.)

But I'll let you into a secret Howie.

Just between us girls.

Come close and I'll whisper in your ear....

If the women you hang out with, the ones you believe accept you as a woman

Only talk about those "averagely" womanny interests you love to share

They don't really think you are a woman at all.

They are just playacting for you out of charity or conformity.

They are, in fact, twisting their authentic selves out of shape to accomodate you.

Because you are a man and that is what women are socialised to do, and what men are so socialised to expect that they don't even realise it.

And that is why women, in the original sex based meaning, need women-only spaces not just for physical safety but so we can find parts of our authentic selves that being around men suppresses.

I mean you couldn't spell out the word INCEL more clearly if you tried.

Transcels are a subset of incels.

IncelsRUs and all that!

We're getting awfully close to Layla Moran's 'I see their souls' - or whatever tripe it was - moment.

Anyway, religious women need single sex spaces for religious reasons, no wiggle room there so the men can fuck off.

Frankly I don't care what their motivations are - if they're going into clearly labelled single sex spaces that's a huge safeguarding red flag and they're - at best - unkind to women and girls so can fuck off.

I've stopped giving a tiny shit about the motivations men who transgress boundaries in place for women and children.

They don't really think you are a woman at all

Nailed it.

It is like the male posters who tell us constantly that no one asks them to leave the female toilets and their friends always tell them they pass.

Errr… no. That would be people acting in ways that confirm that they know the person is male and act in ways to not make that male person aggressive or sad or whatever.

Reading this thread (and so many others like it, but in this one it’s really very pronounced) is bringing back to me with painful clarity the first time I really experienced misplaced male confidence. It wasn’t arrogance - it was a very dear friend, with a lovely personality, and for whom I felt great affection and respect - but rather this absolute, unquestioning certainty that his own understanding of whatever issue we were discussing was at least few steps or more ahead of my own.

I remember endless conversations in his car - we covered life, the universe and everything together, and I loved this regardless - in which I’d quietly tolerate his assumption that he really needed to explain to me a point I’d addressed with far more nuance whole minutes earlier. So much of each discussion was spent waiting for him to catch up to whatever counter-argument or flaw I’d long since introduced.

I know that may seem arrogant on my part - it feels awkward to put into words, and for this reason I never have before, bar in the frustrated quiet of my own head! - but it was so, so pronounced. And this was someone who was debating in good faith, and genuinely interested in my counter-arguments. It hampered him - but he didn’t realise it.

And over time, it became apparent how very strikingly gendered such behaviour was. There were, absolutely, exceptions to the rule, but so often in conversations with men, I’d find them skimming the surface of an issue with total confidence in their own understanding, helpfully throwing me explanatory lifebuoys to help me access their “level”… while I was already busily engaged in a fascinating deep dive below that surface.

It wasn’t about intelligence, but their subtle gendered preconceptions. Sexism, by any other name.

This thread is so reminiscent of that. There’s SUCH a chasm between the quality of the arguments and the ability to engage meaningfully with the issue on the two sides - and such blissful ignorance on one side of there even being a chasm! It’s sometimes genuinely funny - but also quite distressing in the sheer hopelessness of ever seeing Howse even accept the proffered scuba gear, let alone putting it on and discovering the depths in which other posters are swimming that lie below his sarky complacency. It’s sad for us - we need him to attain this deeper understanding - and sad for them as they simply don’t realise how they’re sometimes coming across.

Can we have the proof of personality traits being “biologically influenced” please?

I am looking forward to it.

Or is it going to the the same crap paper drawn from the old self selecting, potentially compensation, self determining survey which couldn’t make any adjustments for what might be an answer based on reality vs self perception vs aspiration?

Great post but I disagree on the last bit.

It's the law that males aren't allowed into spaces labelled single sex, very clearly. Toilet / changing room providers can choose to only offer mixed sex but it has to be labelled as such. None of the coercive, abusive behaviour of the past that enables men to get their jollies arriving and stripping (or whatever) when unsuspecting women and children are there. (and pretending they 'pass' because the women and children have the natural instinct of fear when encountering a much stronger male body with at least 160% their punch power clearly transgressing boundaries in an enclosed space)

Women have the choice then, whether to used mixed sex or only go to places with single sex facilities. They're consenting rather than unconsenting if they share a mixed sex space. Obviously less fun for the boundary transgressing men which is I assume why third spaces are so opposed.

We don't need Hows to change his mind about women being support humans for men and not deserving of their own human rights. It's a waste of time trying to convince someone with such misogynist sentiments that he's wrong. He's always going to twist things.

It's the law that single sex needs to mean single sex, he's wrong under the law. I don't care what he thinks. No is a complete sentence.