”Safeguarding is a false argument for the exclusion trans individuals using spaces that aren't defined as being a refuge.”
Again, this highlights your own lack of safeguarding understanding.
We know and understand the history of public provisions for female people and we know what the ‘urinary leash’ refers to. You keep using the term, yet you fail to consider that allowing male people access to female publicly accessible female single sex provisions reintroduces that urinary leash.
Safeguarding principles are the reason female single sex provisions were introduced in the first place. How long it took to introduce those provisions due to a sexist society is not relevant to the discussion about why we need them.
Your historical references don’t support whatever the argument you are trying and failing to make.
“Forcing who outwardly looks like a man or a woman but biologically one is exposing the gery abuse you seek to prevent. ”
I assume you are referring to female people being asked if they are in the correct toilet as being ‘abuse’? Many of the regular posters, including me, have been questioned over the decades. It has always happened and it is not abuse. It is an interaction that allows other female people to be confident of the sex of the person they are sharing a single sex provision with because those provisions are not monitored in any other way.
If anything has caused this to be more of an issue, it is the fact that an identification check by security or police in the very rare instances where people are stopped and asked becomes a significant issue because that identification is now unreliable due to the ability to change sex markers on legal identification documents. This then requires careful handling that is more than simply seeing identification to confirm sex category.
“Safeguarding victims by providing safe refuge was never a problem beyond the general lack such spaces the spent by running into random public toilet or changing room as a means of excaping abuse is neither likely or even practical as means protection. Primarily because most abuse occurs in the privacy of the home or is perpetrated by people in positions of trust”
I can only assume what you are referring to here. By all means, correct any wrong interpretation.
Another fallacious argument that we see quite often on this board is that toilets and changing rooms are not safe at all because of the huge proportion of abuse occurring at home or by known people. It fails for several reasons.
One is because abuse and incidents still do occur in female single sex provisions by male people who enter and always did. Why wouldn’t decision makers want to limit risk even if that risk is overwhelmed by abuse in the home?
Of course, the number of harmful incidents reported in mixed sex provisions is also significant. So, that then is evidence that these single sex provisions do provide a safer environment for female people. Also the logic is irrefutable that a male person who accesses a female single sex provision over the age of about 8-10 years old changes that provision into ‘mixed sex’.
Another reason the argument fails is why the fuck should abuse victims not expect to have their needs considered for publicly accessed provisions? Why should they not be able to access female single sex provisions out in public if they need those provisions to be female single sex? There are many many posts on this board and social media of female people describing how they are hugely concerned and sometimes retraumatised by the prospect of any male person above about 8 years old being in a space that those female people feel vulnerable in.
It is not supporting those victims of abuse to remove female single sex provisions. Just because their abuse occurred at home, why should they not be supported to go out of the home? It also ignores the accounts of those female victims of allowing any male domestic abuser to continue their abuse by following them into a space that should be private and relatively safe. Removal of privacy is just one type of abuse an abuser may use.
It is a contradiction that someone professing to be concerned about trauma care then advocates the removal of provisions that give support in public to those traumatised female people. It was always a flawed argument.
Plus the other contradictory aspect of saying ‘there are no safe spaces anyway’ is really then highlighting that male people making the demand that they use those female single sex provisions for their personal safety are wrong to do so. Because if female people are not safe there anyway, those male people will not be safe either. If female people have to risk attack in their provision because there are no ‘safe’ spaces, those male people cannot use the argument that those are safe spaces for them either.
If male people need an alternative solution for them, they need to find that solution. It may be finding an alternative provision, or campaigning for making male single sex provisions safer for all male people and normalising male people with any identity using male single sex provision. The solution is not use the female single sex provision and it never was the solution.
It is a deeply flawed argument to declare that female single sex provisions are not ‘safe’ anyway. Those provisions were never provided with the intention that they were 100% guaranteed safe, nothing is. They were provided to minimise the risk of harm as much as possible in a non-monitored publicly accessible environment.
For clarity, harm is also not restricted to physical harm either. It is inaccurate to focus only on that risk of physical harm when discussing safeguarding.
Allowing a group of male people to access them increases that risk of harm to an unacceptable level. It is the very opposite of strong safeguarding principle and practice.