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?

If validation is what is being sought presumably unisex spaces would not be acceptable either? My swimming pool has large unisex space which is usually fine. At work we have unisex toilets but they are awful - really confined cubicles that open out onto a narrow corridor. I know some trans people who use both and they seem relaxed about it which suggests for them at least it's not about validation.

I suspect that's because there is no other option. If there were single sex spaces, i bet my house they'd be trying to use the wrong one.

Not if there aren;t enough of them they couldn't? What is the point of anything other than single cubicles with shower and sink and proper dressing table and mirror, professionally cleaned after every use, where every single man or woman can enter and have the most amazing toilet experience?

The point is life is not perfect, we do not have the space or money to treat everyone like the queen. There is a very good reason why disabled people get "special treatment" (ie access to facilities that they are actually able to use).

There is no reason whatsoever why some able-bodied men and women deserve special luxury spaces better than everyone else gets even though they don;t need them.

It is cheaper and easier to give trans people proper mental health support than alter every blooming public building or business premises in the country.

Trans identified males insist on access to women's loos and changing rooms because anything else doesn't confirm their claim to be women. It's the presence of women that matters.

Is this the case for both the male and female people with trans identities?

I guess unisex spaces may more validating than using the facility for your sex; the problem is they make most women feel uncomfortable.

@Shortshriftandlethal I know one trans man and one trans woman.

If given a choice I would prefer single sex but I think unisex could work if designed well. My work unisex toilets design is awful and I don't think anyone is comfortable using them. The swimming pool unisex changing room works reasonably well because it's very big and airy and staff are usually walking about. I suspect well designed unisex space is too expensive.

Because it's not the space they want, it's the women in the space.

What if you are born female but look like a man and you have testosterone driven behaviour? Male presenting women will be justifiably scary to women

This, basically. For trans people and the TRAs who support them it's allowable to group by gender but it's not allowable to group by sex. Recognising sex is as old fashioned an idea as saying Catholic people can't by MPs. So anything that recognises a difference between the sex of a trans person and the sex of others of their target gender is verboten.

That is what they say, anyway. Some of them, non trans tribal #bekind type TRAs and young autistic trans people probably believe they believe it as well.

But underneath, the whole thing requires that most people to carry on behaving as if things are segregated by sex, so that the single sex spaces trans people aspire for whatever reason to be included in remain close enough to their fantasy of being one of the opposite sex to meet requirements.

Because it doesn’t give them a boner. The only thing that gives them a boner is violating women’s only spaces.

The outing excuse is odd.

Any additional space wouldn't be 'trans only', and friends and colleagues would know they were trans already.

If men passed as women and didnt cause problems in the space, there wouldnt be the demand to exclude them.

So i think the risk of 'outing' isnt true, its more a reminder that they arent the desired sex, and everyone knows it. Its more highlighting, than outing, if that makes sense.

Not if there aren;t enough of them they couldn't?

Can you imagine the sign, 'this is a trans priority space, please give up this space for a TW'. Eddie izzard come lumbering up and nobody knows whether the right thing to do is acknowledge he is a man or pretend he isnt.

I'm always puzzled at the weight given to trans demands for any kind of special toilet facilities:
The population of the UK is around 70 million people.
Of that, maybe about 260,000 are transgender, according to the last census.

Where is the proportionality in every public venue having to provide a mixed sex '4th space' for such a tiny percentage of the population?

Where is the justification for removing single sex facilities which cater for the 100% of the population who are either biologically female or biologically male, and replacing them with mixed sex toilets to cater for 0.5% of the population who don't want to use the toilet designated for their sex?

Note: they choose not to use them, it's not the same as people with disabilities who cannot use them and need 3rd spaces, i.e. adapted accessible toilets.

Stripping away the ideology, and sticking to logic, fairness, practicality and pragmatism how can anyone justify demanding '4th spaces' for such a small number of people?
Who, as we've seen, may not even use them!

I'd like to post a 'they don't know that we know they know' and 4th spaces would mean that they know we know that they know kind of post but don't have the wit to word it.

I know! From conversations with trans friends, it's all about affirmation (maybe with a soupçon of male-on-male violence in the background). Call me naive, but I don't think they're predatory, just callous, and very focussed on being acknowledged as a woman.

But they don't pass, so what's the point? I thought of pointing out that none of this can be practically enforced against passing trans people when out and about, so "outing" is a non-issue, but my subject was already bridling like a startled pony so I left off.

It all reminds me of a colleague I once had who sent me to Coventry for several years because I didn't fix a booking so she would be travelling with a (married) colleague she had a crush on. How was I supposed to simultaneously know this (I didn't) and not know it (because, surely, me knowing it should have been embarrassing to her)? Total head-fuck. Dealing with trans v similar.

Largely depending on what he tells you he feels is the 'mode' he's in at the moment.

Yes sir. Certainly I will predicate my perceptions and actions obediently around what random bloke announces is happening between his ears in any given moment. That doesn't sound batshit at all.

It's not like I have a life of my own or anything, or exist for other purposes, is it?

And totally yes to why on earth all this fucking about for less than 2% of the population, who keep announcing that excluded women Dont Matter because hardly any lesbians want to be homosexual and it's only bitter old saggy titted cows who don't earnestly want to do whatever a man wants in the moment with their body. Or women refusing to get over being traumatised so they can gratify whatever bit of a man needs gratifying by getting their clothes off. Or women following religions and cultures they shouldn't be allowed to because Not Like The Better and Superior People Who Are Activists. There's a damn sight more of those women than these men.

It's bloody amazing how far a 'civil rights' movement can get when it's almost entirely about serving the desires of middle class white educated affluent able bodied straight blokes.

You've only got to look at Hampstead Ponds to see what happens when there's a 3rd/4th/5th/gender neutral space. HP have three ponds: a ladies' pond, a men's pond and a mixed sex pond. So, technically, any trans person who doesn't want to use the pond which correlates with their birth sex can use the mixed pond, with no need whatsoever for them to be using the pond that is for the opposite sex (the one they 'identify' as). A good solution, right?

Except it's clear that trans women have been using the Ladies Pond and they - and their handmaids - have reacted with outrage when it's been suggested that they stop doing so.

So it's not about "we just want to pee/swim/whatever", it's all about the special validation feelz. Women are not here to be supporting characters in their fantasies.

It's simple logic. For their self image to be true, ours has to be false.

If they can be women despite their bodies, we cannot be women because of our bodies.

The single greatest tell that the whole trans movement is a con is that they won't allow us to say "women are adult human female" but also won't allow us to say "ok then women aren't adult human females but we adult human females do still exist and have sex specific challenges and needs, so let's agree that people of either sex can be women based on inner gender and we will pick a different name for AHF and base the supports and rights that AHF specifically need on that instead".

No, that's not good enough. They want to be able to tell us the reasons we believe we are women ourselves are wrong yet nevertheless agree that they are women "just like us".

I don't wish to encourage trans'women' to break the law, but surely if they do genuinely pass then they can break the law with no fear of punishment, and no fear of harming the women they encounter who will - by definition - not be scared.

The issue of couse is "do they really pass as well in real life as they do in an ultra-filtered photo?"

The other think about outing... surely everyone who knows them well knows they're trans (partly because it's obvious, and partly because having close friendships based on a lie about who you are is utterly pointless - no proper friendship exists with such a lie at the heart of it.) So the only people TWs might fool (or out themselves to) are strangers. Worrying what strangers think is nuts (as nuts as believe you were born in the wrong body or have a wrong-sex gendered soul.)

That is why the law is needed however, and it needs to be absolutely clear with no wiggle room or shaky boundaries.

The buzz is being among women in a women's space - using them for personal gratification. This can be anything from overtly sexual to emotional, but the morals of using women? No. Women are not resources for men. They are not there to be used. Their spaces are not therapeutic or entertainment venues for men.

How moral or ok is it to say to women, if they can successfully fool you into undressing with you - by stealth - and you don't scream and force them to leave - you have to let them use you and your body? Because lets face it, that's what about the space matters.

What do we do with the women who cannot use mixed sex spaces and would not consent to do so? Tell them that any men who come in are there in hope of not being spotted so they can't know or trust that any space is man-free and part of using them is dealing with deceitful men and chancers who may or may not pass as well as they should? Is that an experience women should have? Or the price of using a public resource, service or space? Is it ethical or as equally respectful to women as it is to the desire of men to sneak in there and use those women without consent? Those women have equal right to access and inclusion.

Men very very often demonstrate very unrealistic ideas on who passes and who doesn't - and it is appallingly unfair to other men to say they have to somehow work out who does and does not. Who is going to do this? Who is going to deal with the angry and the unhinged on the door when in beard and tutu a bloke is bellowing that he passes and if that bloke can be with undressed women then he is too and no one can stop him?

It has to be that women only spaces cannot be used or entered by men. Any men. In any circumstances. End of. On a sexed basis, no exceptions. This is why the SC decided as they did. There was no other way to make the protections for other protected groups including women and gay people to work.

The men who are furious about this have no respect or care for women, or for women's consent, or for women's equality and inclusion, and have demonstrated precisely why the law is needed.

In reality, male cleaners, plumbers and other repair workers exist, so "no wiggle room... in any circumstance" is tosh. Especially if those men are the emergency services responding to a call.

😂😂😂😂😂

Oh don't be silly.

It's invalidating

There is a thrill in fooling people even if its just people ignoring the fact that you arnt who you say you are

You need something to fight against sharing with your own kind is boring where is the drama the excitement

🙄🙄
Male cleaners, plumbers and other repair workers enter when the facility is closed. 🤦‍♀️