Is it not possible to have "trans rights" and "women's rights" at the same time?

[Artmumcreative]

I suppose I just think debate is too polarised. I think the answer might be to have third spaces (e.g. a separate toilet a bit like a disabled toilet) for trans women, so they're safe and women are safe. I think it would be nice if women supported transpeople and transpeople supported women (e.g at a trans rights demo and a women's rights demo). Not all transwomen are rapists, just as not all men are.

It's not just possible it's easy. All we have to do is to respect the Equality Act 2010 and implement the Supreme Court decision in FWS versus the Scottish Govt - the decision that says that we have protections for biological sex separate from protections for gender reassignment.

Get on with it and then everyone's rights are protected.

'Can they really not see that what they are saying makes no sense?'

Considering a male nurse in the Darlington case said most confidently that he cannot understand why women were upset in the first instance of him being in the changing room in boxer shorts complete with holes and obviously him being male, this male person in Los Angeles shows just as much confidence that he should be fully accepted into those gym changing rooms.

The outrage that he and the male nurse in the Darlington case, and Upton in the NHS Fife case, express at the thought of being excluded should be sending up red flags and loud alarms. But apparently, women are to be told that they have a polarised view on this.

The only way that any person can try to make 'sense' of this, is by fully subscribing to philosophical theory. There is no evidence at all that this group share a commonality of either a biological or neurological marker that indicates that they have a 'gender identity'.

Then comes the question. What other philosophical belief gives a group of male people access to additional privileges that no one else can access? What other group's philosophical belief allows them to access the provisions of an entire other group, simply based on their belief that they should access that provision?

Threads like this, whether the OP intended it or not, just feel like women are being told that we are not kind enough and that we are the problem. No workable solution is ever suggested that has not already been suggested. And yet, women are the problem with our 'polarised' demands.

They They right to. Hide previous identity on dbs? Isn't that really dangerous? Can people hide previous crimes?

Your framing of the debate as “too polarised” combined with the “not all transwomen are rapists” line suggests you feel the responsibility for this inability to find a mutually acceptable solution lies with GC women.

Third spaces would be a reasonable compromise, and (as this thread shows) most GC feminists have no issue with this whatsoever; many actively support the idea. But TRA’s, trans allies, and a large proportion of transwomen consider this suggestion to be transphobic, bigoted (and various other hyperbolic nonsense referencing denial of existence, violence, erasure of identities, and so on). There can be no reasonable discussion, let alone compromise, when a group insists on total capitulation like this.

I understand wanting everyone to respect each other; I also used to think trans people and their supporters were mostly reasonable people who would show me the respect I showed them. I naively thought we’d find a lovely progressive solution that worked for everybody.

But women who understand that biological definitions of sex are important, who believe in women’s right to single-sex spaces, are openly targeted with disgusting and explicit threats of violence. Women’s groups and events are deliberately disrupted (regardless of whether they have any connection to gender identity issues or not). Rape crisis centres included biological males in single-sex spaces - much needed by women who have been traumatised by men - and the women who expressed discomfort about this were called “bigoted” and told to “reframe [their] trauma” (added to which, when a second rape crisis centre was set up so that everyone - including transwomen - could receive appropriate care and support, this led to uproar from transwomen and TRAs about the evil terf who created a <checks notes> sensible compromise. It had absolutely no effect on them, other than denying them another source of validation for their ‘identities’…but they felt their validation was much more important than allowing traumatised women a space to feel safe and heal…so they campaigned against it). In this climate, talking about transwomen supporting women feels like either a fever dream or a bad joke.

There is no nice, mutually respectful, #bekind resolution possible when this is the attitude and approach of so many transwomen and their supporters. GC women are not the source of issues around trying to find a solution that allows everybody their dignity and safety, and I’m sick of the narrative that suggests transwomen are sweet little flowers who just want to pee in peace and wouldn’t harm anybody. I don’t care if they’re not rapists; their presence in single-sex spaces causes harm. If they won’t work with us to find a compromise that respects women, they’ll have to get some mental health support and deal with their dysphoria in whatever way doesn’t force unconsenting women to engage in their delusions. It’s their problem, so they can reframe their fucking trauma.

I said exactly the same on X once and I was called a Nazi Apartheidist bigoted bitch for my trouble.

So I don't think this is going to solve it, no.

Well that went down well. Any more apple pie and unicorns dreams that you would care to share with us?

Reader's Note:

Robust safeguarding principles for publicly accessed and unmonitored spaces do indeed use blanket rules. Such as all male people, regardless of who they are, are treated as having the exact same risk of harming female people.

Because there is no fucking way to do a case by case evaluation on every male person who may one day choose to use the female single sex provisions that are accessed by the general public.

So, just as 'not all male people are rapists', they still are treated exactly the same for the safeguarding decisions of who has access and who does not. Those who advocate some kind of 'case by case' solution seem to have little understanding how this would work. It is complete nonsense. Yet, how many times do we see that suggestion.

I would love to know just what thought processes that those who believe that a case by case scenario of allowing 'some' male people access into a female single sex space works.

And when you consider the source of the harms to female people of male inclusion, I really cannot see any justification at all to deviate from the 'all' malle people are treated exactly the same.

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people. There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Any female person who is displaced because a male person has been included in that provision designed to directly address sexist oppression of female people, and only female people.

What would be the criteria for accessing whether a male person would cause any female person harm with their access to that single sex space?

Of course all male people are to be treated as equal risk to female people. They are all treated as if they are all rapists, because they are all excluded. Regardless of how lovely and kind and gentle and harmless they are.

Yes. It is a clear route to breaking visible links with a previous identity. I think this has happened more then once - there was a case in Scotland and I remember in Wales that a man who identified as a woman and been imprisoned for sexually abusing his daughter for years changed his name in prison and his daughter only found out because he told her. The authorities wouldn’t have done if he didn’t give permission.

The Scottish government refused to allow an amendment to their self id law they tried to ram through (but were thankfully thwarted) to stop convicted criminals getting a GRC and being able to get a new birth certificate with a new name and different sex. What could possibly go wrong?

www.compactmag.com/article/a-trans-pedophile-stole-my-name/

The only 'right' transpeople haven't got, and are demanding, is the right to remove women's rights. That is not a right but an outrageous privilege, which no one should have.

Women rarely injure men, and I have never heard of a woman entering men's toilets to watch or listen to or film men urinating or defecating, or to intimidate or assault men. Yet no one questions men's right to single-sex spaces for privacy.

Meanwhile, women and girls are assaulted and threatened by men every day, including sometimes in women's single-sex facilities. It's not a theoretical risk, but a real everyday danger. Women have single-sex spaces for safety as well as privacy. And yet we endlessly have to restate the case, and fight to keep women's single-sex facilities against men demanding the right to entry.

When people say "Surely there's a middle way?" I ask where they would find an unoccupied space between women having single-sex facilities and men having access to them. It's a logical impossibility.

No. The "rights" Trans Activists campaign for is the right to remove women's rights. They have actively campaigned for the removal of sex as a protected characteristic per the Equality Act. So no, trans rights and women's rights are mutually exclusive.

We offered them third spaces ages ago. They said no, because a third space 'others' them. They want the female space because it's the women in it that give them validation. A third space defeats that purpose. They won't compromise on males in female spaces. No matter what we offer.

We have tried.

You mean this level of unsafe? https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5438611-dylan-mulvaney-spotted-in-the-mens-loos

Transwomen are males with penis and testicles. They were born with Male Privilege and male socialisation, and have NO lived experience of growing from a girl into a woman, periods, being sexually harassed, etc. There is nothing remotely about them that is remotely 'woman'. You are the one confused here, @TheseWordsAreMine .

On a practical level, how will 'appropriate' toilet usage be policed without undermining women's rights?

Third spaces effectively creates a situation where cis women's rights are effectively eroded by 'transvestigator' scrutiny & harassment for the grand total of 0.5% of the population. The trade off of living under 1984 conditions of suspicious informant/denunciation culture particularly for gender non conforming cis women can hardly be said to be worth it.

In terms of utilitarianism, third spaces are objectively a women's rights monumental liability.

Yes, we are being a bit soft by saying it's worth making third spaces for 0.5% of the population.

You do have a point that it's probably not merited - after all there's nothing really stopping them using the correct sexed one, like the other 99.5%.

And that's what this is all about - retaining the sex split for the 99.5% plus your 0.5%. Retaining the recourse of 50% of the population when any member of the other 50% (that contains all the harrassers and sex offenders) intrude.

Whether the 0.5% get their bonus third space isn't a huge deal, sure.

Anyway, come on, be nice. This the 'Is it not possible to have "trans rights" and "women's rights" at the same time?' thread. If you start insisting that a third space isn't worth it cos there just aren't enough "trans" it then there's no concession at all to "trans rights."

Sure, "trans rights" aren't very utilitarian - nothing for 0.5% is - but you do have to have some care for minorities while being utilitarian and caring for the 50%s.

It often surprises me how “trans allies” say the quiet part out loud. They don’t want 3rd spaces. What fun would there be in that ? And framing keeping men out of female spaces as being bad for women is a … errr… stupid take if ever there was one. I mean, if males with a trans identity feel unsafe in male spaces, surely that’s on men. Why is there not a huge campaign telling men to #bekind and accept some men wear dresses and make up?

They dont want their own toilets

The point you are spectacularly missing is how toilet 'etiquette' will be policed without compromising the rights of 99.5% of cis women not to mention who will do the policing & how that will compromise them personally & legally if they get it 'wrong' which there are already numerous reports of.

Regardless of the impact on trans people which is in itself a whole other quagmire of rights, there are the practical implications that doesn't seem to be something rationally or responsibly considered.

I'll worry about that tomorrow?….

Here we go, OP. A example for you that TRA's do not want third spaces. They do not want to find a compromise or find a scenario where there's an attempt to recognise that women need single sex spaces for their dignity and safety.

Only women's complete capitulation is acceptable to them. Women being forced to use spaces which are designated as single sex but are in reality due to the presence of males in them a mixed sex space, is the goal for TRA's. Remember that women choosing to avoid such spaces is considered a micro aggression, as we have seen demonstrated in several recent court cases.

A 'reasonable solution' has been suggested many times. And rejected. Only women's total capitulation is acceptable to those rabidly and determinedly campaigning against women's legal right to single sex spaces and services.

The point you are spectacularly missing is how toilet 'etiquette' will be policed

Same way we have done for the last 100 years.

Men are told to stay out, they stay out. If they don't, then that's clearly grounds for eviction by management like any other person causing trouble in the establishment.

It's you proposing changing the status quo - to not challenging men.

At this point I think the only solution is everywhere just has individual toilet cubicles. Like a coffee shop or something. No stalls, no shared spaces. Just a toilet and a sink behind a door.

Women being forced to use spaces which are designated as single sex but are in reality due to the presence of males in them a mixed sex space, is the goal for TRA's.

Precisely. The most notable feature is how incredibly aggressive they are about claiming it's stupid and unenforceable to have separate-sex facilities, while thinking separate-gender facilities make perfect sense.

Total clown show.

They're perfectly fine with the boundaries they like - they just don't women to have their boundaries, and so will throw any old shit about boundaries in general being unenforceable, while firmly maintaining their own.

Ah, so it's all on 'management' & their staff to conduct the 'gametal inspections' not to mention gender non conforming women to suffer the consequences of harassment ?

Like I said, total clown show.

No. They can use the men’s toilets, changing rooms etc. Because they are men. It’s really that simple.