Why doesn't the trans community want 3rd (and 4th?) spaces?

[JamieCannister]

... and are any of the reasons they give (or don't give) reasonable?

By "trans community" I mean trans activists / trans people who are activists, as a braod group. Obiously I do not mean every single person who identifies as trans.

(1) IMHO it seems to me clear that "validation" is a big reason. I am not sure how often this is said, but trans people, especially TIMs seem to want women's spaces for validation, therefore they don't want 3rd spaces.

(2) Predation / feelings of power. Never said, but it is clear that some people in the TQ+ community (and any community) have genuinely nefarious reasons for wanting women's spaces not 3rd spaces. In theory this could be a tiny number, in practice we simply do not know, nor is it women's job to have to take on the (at best) mental load of wondering which ones might be dodgy.

(3) Using 3rd spaces is "outing". For this to be valid it would require passing in the first place. It also suggests that TIMs believe that the right of a trans'woman' to be perceived as what he is not is greater than the rights of women to single sex spaces. I don't think that the right to change someone else's perception of you (not least from perceiving truth to perceiving a lie) is a right that I support.

(4) Practical reasons. Accepting 3rd spaces means accepting they have no rights to be in opposite sex spaces. They know that if it comes to it, most of the time, 3rd spaces simple cannot be practically provided so 3rd spaces in effect means TIMs in the disabled or the men's.

(5) They are not stupid. They know exactly how 3rd spaces would play out. Women and TIFs would be in the women's. Men would be in the men's. TIMs would be alone or in tiny groups in the 3rd spaces, perhaps occasionally accompanied by a hand-maiden friend of theirs.

(6) It's harder to claim victimhood in 3rd spaces. If they can't get what they want (access to women), then they're better off in the men's (where they can whine) or the disabled (where they can whine and pretend they care about disabled spaces being used by people who are not disabled, but claim that they have to do it so it's women's fault the disabled is used by non-disabled) than they are in 3rd spaces where the only whine they can possibly have is "but we want to get changed with the women" which is less of a sympathetic demand than some of their others.

(7) Chaos. The whole movement (TQ+, queer theory) is about causing chaos and destroying normal, nice, civilized society and family life. 3rd spaces end a conflict, and they don't want to end conflict. In contrast being allowed into women's spaces for good is an acceptable solution because whilst it ends conflict on paper in practice it doesn't - conflict will continue and they know it and want it.

Third spaces do no solve the "problem" (men wanting to be in spaces with women for a variety of reasons), and, if anything, they would demonstrate the problem as well (women don't want to enter spaces with men) thus undermining the entire incoherent men's rights movement further.

What am I missing? Are there other reasons?

It is useful to have clarity here - 3rd spaces usually refers to facilities for the disabled - those who for physical or mental reasons are unable to use standard toilet facilities. They are not there for those who don't need them.

Fundamentally - the reason not to pursue this line is that there is no need - who is going to pick up the cost - why should small organisations have that as yet another overhead, and in many places there is not the space.

Born a boy - you use the gents
Born a girl - you use the ladies

if as a bloke you want to wear a dress in the gents - crack on - some places you will be teased, most places you will be ignored, but if you are a bloke there are already facilities there for you...

It is the height of selfishness and arrogant indulgence if someone should demand that they have special facilities for some made up categorisation - when perfectly good facilities already exist.

eta: as for their reasons - you have probably already covered them - and none of them are acceptable to force other to provide those facilities

Fair point. I should have said 4th and 5th.

"Fundamentally - the reason not to pursue this line is that there is no need - who is going to pick up the cost - why should small organisations have that as yet another overhead, and in many places there is not the space."

I agree completely, but I don't believe that is one of the reasons that TRA don't pursue 4th/5th spaces. They don't care if businesses lose customers because women boycott due to mixed sex toilets, so I don't believe they care if businesses have to spend money building 4th and 5th spaces, or go bust because by the time they've installed the full compliment of toilets in their small restaurant they only have space for two tables for customers.

My adult child is trans. She would love third spaces; in fact the only time she ever uses a toilet when we are out is if we find a third space toilet, which is very rare.

I think it has to be the way ahead.

Without the validation of their fellow women they'll have to look at themselves and recognise themselves for what they are. Even more problematically they'll have look at who they actually are sharing the room with. Wilful blindness to your own degree of passing may work if the person next to you is a woman, but when it's big Brenda or possibly a young man who can pass, if you squint. Delusional thinking can only survive so much exposure to reality. Recognising you, them, are men and you all look ridiculous would crush them.

Fourth and Fifth spaces would mean that trans women aren’t women and trans men aren’t men and the other gender logic statements would quickly crumble.

It’s a sexual turn on for the activists who think that women who don’t complain about them believe that they are women rather than them being too scared to risk a physical attack.

What toilet do non-binary people use? Do they alternate between the gents and ladies or do they pick their biological sex? Will they want a sixth unisex space?

Because its not about 'just wanting to pee'.

Its about power and control.

Always has been.

In the past it was about regaining power in control for some individuals with dysphoria within their own lives but this didn't extend to actually believing someone was the opposite sex.

But for others this wasn't enough and over time we've seen a creep to wanting greater power and control over others.

Its like rape in the sense that too many people think its a crime about sex rather than power and control. You see narratives based on victims sexual availability and attractiveness but actually it always comes back to the vulnerability and lack of power of a victim rather than what they look like. This is why rapes of old ladies and disabled people are particularly shocking, because they lay this point home particularly starkly - as these are individuals in society with 'low sexual attractiveness value'.

By the same token this is where militant trans activism falls down - it fails to recognise points where it crosses into areas where certain values class.

Eg - sport. The concept of 'fairness' and 'safety' are ones which stick and when you make suggestions for inclusion on alternative terms and they rejected, it starts to show up the lack of respect for fairness and safety.

Eg - the Staniland question. Social understanding of a male undressing in the presence of an strange young girl hits certain notes about it not being about dysphoria (if you are dysphoric you don't like your own body so you wouldn't want anyone else to see that body, thus private spaces away from EVERYONE actually make most sense).

Eg - Inclusive toilet provision being proved. You've been inclusive and discreet but this isn't good enough. The need for validation exposes this requirement of the use of women as part of the point of using female facilities.

Eg - The 'female' rapist demanding their victim uses female pronouns and they are housed in the female estate.

These certain 'pinch points' are points where 'being kind' isn't the main priority of the majority of others. They place higher value on other issues / considerations. If you ignore these considerations and don't want to have these difficult conversations the whole ideology falls apart.

They don't want a third space because it's central to their beliefs.
It's because they have an oppressor/oppressed narritive. You can see that it started with communism - workers oppressed by the rich capitalists, then feminism - women oppressed by men - they have taken that narritive and say that trans identified people are oppressed by hetro normative culture.

They are the victims of oppression and should not be marginalised, Transwomen are women and should be accepted as fully female, even if it doesn't make sense when it connects with the real world.

Indeed!
As to the 'outing', why should it matter? And who would think about it? Anyone could use a third/fourth/whatever space for whatever reason. In fact, seeing as there are allegedly so many transmaidens who love to pee/undress etc with males and consider us so silly for not wanting to, they can go into these spaces and fulfil their desire to support these males.

I don't think it's been pushed for because the TRA's are running the show and not ordinary trans people who just want to get on with their lives. Also stonewall insisted on "no debate" so alternatives where never suggested

Do you mind if I ask what your child's birth sex is and what their gender identity is?

Birth sex male, gender identity female.

Not a TRA, just someone trying to live quietly in the way that makes sense to them.

Thanks for answering.

I hope that in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment we will increasingly see additional single user spaces, i.e. not simply changing single sex facilities to mixed sex, but providing an alternative option. People like your child should not be penalised for doing the right thing.

I wonder if this could be another reason that TRAs don't want to consider 4th spaces? I suspect there are lots of trans people like Diverze's child (I know one or 2) who really do simply want to get on with their lives and have no desire to disrupt women's safe spaces. Currently the TRAs are claiming to speak for ALL trans people when they say that 4th spaces would be outing/triggering/unworkable etc. So if 4th spaces became common and lots of trans identifying people happily used them it would shine a light on those TRAs who continued to shout about their 'right' to get their penises out in women's safe spaces.

Because their whole schtick is making people pretend their performance is reality

What's the point of a third of fourth space? There would be no audience

There was a thread on trans segregation re a a Trans Actual report. One answer caught my eye specifically. A TW said something along the lines of, ‘I was told by my employer that everyone would have to treat me as female before the SC ruling,’ (or something similar). It’s just such a huge demand to control what others see and do.

Becayse it doesn't validate middle aged sngry little men who want to feel powerful (becayse it’s not about acceptance, either)

The only acceptable answer is that no one can be without an accessible space, resource and service, and that includes women who need single sex provision.

I support mixed sex/gender neutral facilities, they wouldn't be outing because they would be actually inclusive for several groups: parents with opposite sex children and adult children with disabilities who don't need wheelchair access; carers with opposite sex clients; and there will of course be in there women who are happy to use mixed sex spaces. There will be no way to tell who is using that space and why, probably far less so than many men with trans identities stand out in walking into a women only space.

There is huge offense and outrage at women/spaces being permitted to exist in a way that jars the chosen identity of men. (It's only about activist men and women supporters of those men, women's spaces and services are and have always been the target). Control, suppression, subordination and enforced obedience seems to be playing a serious role, alongside intolerance and no respect for women's equality, access, needs or anything else that would prevent a man using them. Notice the requirement to even engage in conversation with someone in this mindset, that you must accept their terms and beliefs as a starting point: the words, the commitment to enact that those men are not men, and that their needs are the sole focus.

You also have to ask the obvious questions too about why the target is non consenting women, when consenting women are happy to provide the desired experience of women's bodies present in a state of undress/contact.

But as several threads the last few days have shown: no solution is considered tolerable that involves permitting women who want single sex spaces to have an accessible space. To the point of MPs who are captured feeling that permitting women to have any space to undress without male spectators and use is 'unfair'. They are very shy about acknowledging their belief that punishing and coercing those women by making access to work, resources, services and spaces conditional on providing their body for male use, but it's there in the subtext. They are ok with those women submitting and getting their clothes off, or being excluded, where they get very excited if a trans person (a male one) voices feeling unhappy and considering self exclusion. There is no solution to that; it's just going to have to be experience that this is unacceptable and insane, those spaces are going to exist, and behaviour has to stay within acceptable limits about it.

No one 'needs' access to an undressed human. It is not a human right. Women are not a lower species of human existing primarily as a therapeutic resource for men. It is not a a socially healthy or appropriate demand.

Have you ever been in a space where few people are allowed to go? e.g. backstage at a gig, or for me, as a child I occasionally accompanied my Mum to her cleaning job at a bank and could go behind the counter. It's quite a thrill.
I believe these men are thrill seekers, boundary breakers, it adds to their sexual arousal especially if they can make women frightened too. Sex, power and specialness.

For males who want to access women's spaces it is because for them the fantasy and internal illusion that they are women needs the presence of real women in order to be sustained. If they are required to use specialist spaces for trans people then they don't get that validation and the fantasy is shattered leaving them unhappy and their inner fantasy unfulfilled.

There is also for a lot of these males an erotic charge from entering women's spaces for some it will be about the domination and control of the real women in those spaces and for others it will be about the humiliation they experience when they believe they are living as women. It's sexually thrilling to them to imagine they are as powerless and abject as women are in their perception.

I do not buy the idea that they feel unsafe because they also generally fetishize the sexual violence, harassment and abuse actual women face everyday just for being female. I also do buy the idea that they will be outed because most trans women are instantly clockable, even the one's who online seem to pass look male in real life.

So their refusal of specialist spaces is all about getting their own desires fulfilled at the expense of actual women's safety, privacy and dignity. Their mere "want" verses our genuine need.

There shouldn't even be a debate about this, no males regardless of how they identify should be in women's spaces.

Third spaces are not just about those who wish to be known by other than their birth sex. There are others for whom the privacy of a third space can be valuable, given such spaces are individually private. Stoma users come to mind, there will be others.

I'm sorry but for some fetishists the knowledge that women are afraid of them is precisely the turn on.

This.

And for some, the women in a state of undress is a turn on.
Women urinating is a turn on.
Sanpro being used, including getting used sanpro out of bins and imagining helping young girls insert tampons is a turn on
Wanking with the door open is a turn on
Gaining women's shock, alarm, anger, fear, scolding, is a turn on, like the bloke quivering with thrills in the changing room with the door half open waiting for a woman to walk in on him in a state of undress and hopefully supply him with the desired fantasy fulfillment of a woman shouting at him
Just being in a women-only space with women around you and breaking the forbidden boundaries is a turn on.

All this revolting stuff can be fully evidenced any time and has been here over the years, it's not a secret. This is just your every day within the sex class of men.

It's a serious question: why should women be expected to act as sex props for men? To what extent is it ok to use a non consenting member of the public as part of your sexual experience?

What makes men and women who make the meaningless claim that they are trans specially deserving of nice little single cubicle toilets? If those men and women can have special facilities why can't all men and women have special facilities?

There's no reason why other people couldn't also use them if that's what they prefer.