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".

What would be even better would be, within the block of single sex toilets, not only ambulant toilets but also accessible (disabled) toilets too. All these would have door gaps at the top and bottom of the doors and partitions. This would give people who need an accessible toilet, the health and safety benefits of single sex toilets.

Any mixed sex toilet, due to its privacy, needs to be placed in a very visible area, have noticeable cctv and also checked regularly. That includes traditional disabled toilets which are the traditional mixed sex private toilet which are abused.

I’m so sick of the gaslighting.
We all know what sex is, we all know why we have single sex spaces and services.
We all know the crime statistics.

Anyone advocating for males in women’s spaces or saying women are as dangerous as men are a walking red flag.

I’m not giving you a list of reasons why women don’t want men in our SSS, we say no, that is reason enough.

Quite.

What might the agenda be of doing so?

To try and damage and destroy women's boundaries to the benefit of men who wish to use them?

It's over. The law's been clarified. Activists don't need to agree. That they don't agree with women's equality or rights is why that law needs to exist.

The statistics tell us that women are much, much safer to be around than men, for everybody. Nowhere can be 100% safe as you can never mitigate all risk. I have never felt physically or sexually threatened by a woman, but unfortunately I have by men many, many times. I’m sorry about your experiences, but they are the exception and not the rule.

wasnt there a study of sexual assaults in ?council owned gym and pool facilities? About half were single sex spaces - they had about 2% of the assaults ? Am I remembering correctly?

For the vast majority of women we do feel safer in a woman only environment, I’m sorry that you don’t, but that is no reason to let men in.

Safe v safer; it ain't rocket science to distinguish the difference.

And wrt the language switch from TW to transpeople, we are not stupid, we see the attempt to obfuscate and obscure the fact that male humans, what us dried up old hags would have called 'men', are the people who are not welcome in single sex spaces and should stay out no matter how nice they are. We are not nasty old cowbags for telling you this.

No biological woman would have to ask the Op's question, most women have taken refuge in the Ladies at some time to escape a creepy man. I feel for the young women now who have nowhere to hide when out

And today's derail comes from: WOmEn dO iT tOo.

Is it safety or separation??? Oh, now you’ve asked this incredibly intelligent thought-provoking question, OP, I’ve just had to stop polishing the coffee table while I sit stunned on the sofa at the sheer complexity of it all. Hell, you’ve got me questioning myself now? How stupid could I have been? I mean, which one is it? God, I can’t choose, so that must mean my poor lady-brain has malfunctioned in even thinking women should be allowed to have anything for themselves. Mea culpa!

Now - I need to think. What was my reason? Was it safety? Separation? Sunscreen? Strawberries? Snorkels? 🤪

Seriously, fuck off! Women are entitled to single sex spaces for safety, for privacy, for dignity, and for any other reason, including simply wanting them. We don’t have to justify ourselves to you, and you haven’t found an oh-so-clever way to show us we’re wrong 🙄

Just to be clear: i want single sex spaces.
I welcome natal females in female spaces, whether or not they claim a trans (male) or non-binary identity.

Women in the women's, men in the men's.

yes, my gym. They are not banned because there are selfie spots in there and people do mirror selfies. The rule is if you want to take photos, you have to get a yes from everyone in there.

I get that some women have been the victims of both men and their female enablers and some just women. But that doesn't mean we have to allow men in our spaces.

Makes a change from NAMALT.

Didn't expect it to have so many responses. My responses to some of the themes appearing in the comments so far:

The "transgender people" wording: I was referring mostly to trans women, and most responders figured this out.

"safe space are single-sex spaces": that's the crux of the issue: are you looking for a space where men are absent as well as women, are are you looking for a communal space where women gather together but men are excluded. These are different things.

"I want a women-only space so I can feel more comfortable speaking": that makes sense. In the past 60 years, (US) society generaly accepts such arbitrary preferences in the private realm, but won't enforce such preferences in the public realm. You can reject roommates based on sex since a home is the private sphere, but a landlord cannot discriminate on sex since it's not a personal interaction. That's a major distinction that still stands.

"women need single-sex spaces while men don't need them (that's a cornerstone of feminism": that's a problematic stance. It frames feminism as a separatist, if not a supremacy, movement. It renders anti-feminist rhetoric more plausible since the movement is inherently willing to create different classes of citizens.

"single-occupant bathrooms are unsafe due to isolation": that sounds like post-hoc justification to avoid a solution that could accommodate trans women (or TIM, if that's your preferred term). If multi-occupancy is needed for safety, why are single-occupancy bathrooms allowed? Is there any requirement to have an attendant at all times? If you want to have a women-only communal space, say it - that was exactly the question.

Essentially, safety concerns can be addressed with practical solutions, e.g. physical barriers (closed stalls) chaperons, monitoring. Segregation cannot be solved in any other way. I'd support public funding for safety solutions (e.g. grants to create single occupant stalls), since making people feel safe and diffusing this wedge issue is a worthy cause. But if separation is the goal, than that solution will be misguided.

And that was the purpose of the question - not a "gotcha", not a "you should let AMAB in your stall" (that was never argued), but instead - "what do you really want?"

Mumsnet is predominantly a U.K. based website. Most of the commenters here will answer from that viewpoint. I certainly did.

and here, it’s simple. The law says single sex means sex not gender.

I note with some disappointment that you have not replied to anyone, not just me, who discussed their trauma.

so you weren’t interested in discussing but in gathering data. Do you work for Ashton University?

You have to pay mumsnet to gather data here do you not?

"single-occupant bathrooms are unsafe due to isolation": that sounds like post-hoc justification to avoid a solution that could accommodate trans women (or TIM, if that's your preferred term). If multi-occupancy is needed for safety, why are single-occupancy bathrooms allowed?”

It sounds more like you are not well informed or prepared to read the posts.

No, it is not a ‘post-hoc justification’. Unisex spaces have been written about in the media as being a safety issue for female people. This is not new.

Why are they allowed? They always were as it is a solution for small businesses. Why are they allowed when there is room for single sex provisions? Because a group of people believed it is a solution without bothering to ask women. Again.

If these unisex facilities are to supplied, then provide them as additional facilities.

You seem to have an agenda with this thread, but you don’t seem to bother to take the time to read and understand the posts. This seems all too familiar.

First of all, TiM are men.

Obviously we want single sex spaces, partly, but not purely because they are safer for us. "Safe spaces" is a different concept.

Both men and women want single sex spaces in some circumstances. Both sexes need them for privacy and dignity but women have an additional need on the grounds of safety. How is having single sex facilities part of a supremacy movement if both sexes have them?

TiM are accommodated in male facilities. In cubicles or out of them. There is no reason at all to accommodate TiM in women's facilities. As women we have the same right as men to exclude the opposite sex from our single sex spaces.

Provision of cubicles within a communal changing space caters for a wider range of women's needs than an entirely communal area - space permitting, of course.

No attendant required. Just clear signage and indications from the service provider that the sex segregation must be observed and that there will be consequences if it is not.

Safety and privacy have to be balanced. An entirely private toilet stall or changing cubicle is unsafe (and unhygienic). A toilet cubicle with door gaps is much safer but less private. Ditto a changing cubicle with a curtain. Making these facilities communal increases safety - a woman who has collapsed behind a locked door or drawn curtain is visible from the outside, for example. And since the door to the communal facilities is round a corner, so that cubicles don't open onto an area used by the general public, toilet and changing cubicles within a communal area are more private. All this is known, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Also, and most importantly, we don't have to justify ourselves to you.
We said no.

@OneFlakyMaker
Rather than trying to summarise join the conversation.

Why should the State fund building works from public money?
Why not fund changing spaces?

https://www.changing-places.org/

(PS your MRA is showing)

I don’t think you have read the posts seeking to be informed @OneFlakyMaker . You seem to have read posts and superimposed your own bad faith interpretations or misinformed view point on them.

For instance:

”"women need single-sex spaces while men don't need them (that's a cornerstone of feminism": that's a problematic stance. It frames feminism as a separatist, if not a supremacy, movement. It renders anti-feminist rhetoric more plausible since the movement is inherently willing to create different classes of citizens.”

I have read the posts again, and I don’t believe that this statement represents what people were saying. There are many posts being clear about female people needing safety and privacy from male people. Where is there one stating that ‘men didn’t need them’ ?

If there are urinals, an economical option for many organisations, of course male people need and deserve privacy away from female people.

However, as the generally physically stronger sex, male people don’t have the same needs as female people on the safety side of the discussion. They don’t require space away from female people because female people do not pose a physical threat in general to male people whereas the opposite is true for male people being a significant threat towards female people.

I think you have misunderstood what people have meant when they speak about it being a feminist concept. They are referring to the protecting female people. Feminism centres female people to liberate women and girls from oppression. One of those aspects is to focus on what female people need and centre that. In this way, it will require ‘separation’, you could say it is a type of separatism if you oversimplify it.

But it is not a supremacy movement.

This looks like MRA tactics right here though.

“It renders anti-feminist rhetoric more plausible since the movement is inherently willing to create different classes of citizens.”

Err. No. Only if you don’t understand feminism, don’t understand safeguarding and are interpreting it all from a men’s rights activism stance.

There are two sex classes of ‘citizens’. Both sex classes have unique needs that need to be addressed for those groups to participate in society. That feminism only focuses on the needs of female people does seem to make some people uncomfortable and even angry. But it is needed because without it, female people are harmed. Either unintentionally or intentionally.

Saying feminism is creating different classes of people is like saying any advocacy movement is to be rejected because obviously they are only going to be advocating for the people in that group. And by doing so will create different classes of people.

By that argument should we assume that no groups of people should be advocating for their needs? For instance, should we not have disability advocacy groups? Because they are advocating separatism by demanding accommodations in society that only apply to them?

TLDR: Sounds like the OP really has made their aim with this thread clear with this discussion about feminist perspective on single sex provision.

@OneFlakyMaker

The "transgender people" wording: I was referring mostly to trans women, and most responders figured this out.

That would be biological men. Stick to facts then everyone knows what's being discussed.

Yikes.

OK, so you're clearly not from the UK. That's OK but please bear in mind that you have come onto a UK based site where most users are from the UK and you have to be respectful of our culture. American cultural imperialism is not appreciated here.

are you looking for a space where men are absent as well as women, are are you looking for a communal space where women gather together but men are excluded

It depends on the context. When it comes to toilets and changing rooms, it's about safety and dignity. There is a much greater risk that we will be harmed in such spaces if men are present, and even if a man does not physically harm us, his presence may be distressing and cause many women to feel uncomfortable or self exclude.

The idea that such spaces should be segregated by sex is not actually controversial. It is the norm in basically all societies worldwide. It's why you now have so-called "bathroom bills" in your country. Because these sex segregated spaces exist everywhere and we all understand why people want and need them.

Until now, nobody has been suggesting that there is no need for these spaces to be single sex and they should all be made mixed sex, because the reality is that most people want them to remain single sex.

So what has changed?

Certainly not the safety and dignity aspect.

What has changed is that trans identifying men ("trans women") started demanding to be included in women's spaces, and now society is pushing back against that, the narrative is changing to "why do women even need their own spaces in the first place?"

Never mind that trans identifying men have been saying it is absolutely unthinkable for them to share such spaces with men. Now it is perfectly reasonable for everyone to share such spaces with men, apparently.

I can only conclude that the argument has shifted from, "If trans identifying men can't have women's spaces, women can't have them either."

I do find it interesting that you seem to think it is more legitimate for women to have spaces where they can speak and associate without men than to have spaces where they can use the toilet and get changed without men.

Firstly, I find this rather anti-feminist. As a strong, capable, confident woman, I have no problem talking to or speaking in front of men. But I don't generally want to take my clothes off in front of them.

And secondly, I assume you think that trans identifying men (trans women) should be included in such spaces along with women. Unfortunately, they have been socialised as men and they tend to dominate the conversation and mansplain as much as other men do. Including trans identifying men in a space designed for women to express themselves without being constantly talked over by men would very much defeat the point of that space existing.

Finally, I would say that as an American, you come from a profoundly misogynistic culture where women lack basic rights that they take for granted in the rest of the developed world. People who call themselves feminists in America do a lot of talking but never seem to achieve very much. So perhaps you should bear in mind that women in the UK have different expectations of feminism. The minimum level of basic respect and consideration that women believe they are entitled to is much higher in the UK than it is in the US. So before you judge British women for demanding things that you don't think women should be entitled to, perhaps consider the fact that you come from a country where most people don't consider women to be entitled to the most basic rights such as abortions and paid maternity leave, and consider whether perhaps it is American women who aren't demanding enough, rather than British women who are demanding too much.

I am waiting for the discussion to turn to ‘but whatabout the fact that we don’t have segregated workplaces’ and ‘you women demanded equality, well this is what equality looks like’ styled posts from the OP.

Same old, same old.