There was a disaster of a thread started last night from someone who declared they too were a ‘middle ground’ poster. There seems to be a few posting on the boards using that terminology to describe themselves.
They came, like others have in the past, from a position of prejudice against the women who are actively campaigning to prioritise the needs of female people. It seems to be ‘middle ground’ is the new ‘moderate approach’ terminology.
Here is the thing and maybe this is also something you can answer @financialcareerstuff . What is this ‘middle ground’ when it comes to safeguarding?
You said we should celebrate shared ground. Why should people who see the harm in poor safeguarding celebrate potential harms?
You used the term ‘muddled’ for yourself. I take that as an acknowledgement that you understand that your thinking shows inconsistencies.
One of those significant inconsistencies seems to be around safeguarding, your understanding of it vs what the fundamental principles are. I say this because of your posts around toilets and how toilets are segregated.
Toilets were always segregated on sex. Never gender identity in any way. No person had to assess whether they were girl or women enough to use them. You either were born female or not.
They were segregated this way due to safety for female people, for usage patterns and to provide for usage outside of the cubicle as well as inside, and for privacy and dignity away from the other sex.
The very premise of including a group of male people into female single sex toilets needs to be based on something other than a decision to be inclusive. What is the basis of that decision?
Specifically. Why should any male person who demands access because they say they are female be given access?
a) Is it because they biologically are female?
b) Is it because they use regressive gender stereotypes to define themselves, therefore upholding those stereotypes, and present and act in what they consider a feminine way?
c) Is it because those male people deserve extra safety?
d) Is it because those male people’s philosophical belief, not reflective of material reality, should have their belief treated as if it is everyone’s material reality?
If someone thinks b) how does this then work for female people who present in a ‘masculine’ way? What does this even mean, who arbitrates who is masculine or feminine enough? And how does this even work if a woman goes in presenting feminine and changes clothes inside to present masculine?
If someone thinks c), what other male group who deserve extra safety can then access the female toilets? Why is it this particular group getting additional privileges?
If someone thinks d), why should a male person be treated as if he is female when he is not, just because he says he is? Regardless of how sincerely or integrally he believes this, it is not materially real. There are no biological markers at all. So why should society do this? Why is it is considered inclusive for this group to be treated this way when other groups don’t have their philosophical belief treated as if it is materially real when it is not. For example, should an adult who believes they are a child be able to go to primary school?
There has to be a defined reason for those male people to be given the additional privilege of accessing female single sex spaces and not just the male single sex space which was created to fulfil the basic human right. What is that?
Plus consent. Why should people celebrate female people’s consent being overridden in this way?
Why should feminists celebrate female consent being overridden? Just because one person doesn’t see the relevancy of female single sex toilets, why should those female people who need that single sex space lose it because someone else ‘consented’ ?
As I say, what is the middle ground that still provides strong safeguarding, in your opinion?