Vulva Only Spaces

[Lurkingandlearning]

Is this what we need to be asking for now?

That wouldn't exclude people who had transitioned. But it would exclude people who have a penis. Surely when people had transitioned and have a vulva instead of a penis they would feel exactly the same way, as women.

Crikey. Back to genital inspections, I see. "Could I see your fake-vulva please, Sir?"

No, 🤯 FFS what's wrong with you, humans aren't made out of playdough, you can't create a vulva out of a penis.

I agree with all of that. And I'm angry that it seems to me that women are now being marginalised and expected to accept things that we don't want in favour of people who say they want to be women. If they want to be women, support women.

The point of my post was to ask if using the wording vulva only spaces would at least allow us to continue to have, or claw back, the right to have some places where there is no possibility of exposure to male genitalia.

And how do we know if a man claiming to have has surgery has had it or not?

Without even getting into the ins and outs of whether it is a good idea, I think you haven't thought through the implications of suggesting that certain rights are dependent on being castrated.

The ECtHR has already judged that this would violate human rights.

It's a non-starter.

I agree women and girls deserve spaces that are 100% female. I think they need that. That was the point of my post.

So... Female single-sex spaces? That does it.

They?

.

I’m not looking to argue at all, the tone of the thread has been a bit confrontational thus far, but for me, even if surgery created the most beautiful Neo-vulva (I’ve never heard any evidence that it does), it would still be attached to a man. And we can’t tell which men are the bad ones.

Yes it’s better if they haven’t got a willy to wave at women but we see constant examples of metaphorical willy-waggling behaviour from men throwing power and strength around. This has all gone too far for a live-and-let-live scenario like we had pre the last decade.

Err no. Lets not segregate based on what our genitals 'look' like (for a very wide definition of look).

How dehumanising. How transphobic (no-one owes you genital surgery)

They are still not women. Not matter what surgical alterations they’ve had.

Was it? But you seemed in your OP to be arguing for ‘female plus some males’.

@Lurkingandlearning your a man aren’t you?

No thanks
Women’s single sex spaces or female only is fine.

Well yes, obviously. How can male body parts become female ones?

I'm talking about spaces, especially enclosed spaces where women have traditionally accepted nudity from other women, changing rooms would be one. Even women who choose to go into a cubicle to change shouldn't have to come out of that cubicle to see a penis.

My point is we should be allowed spaces where they doesn't happen. And if we need to change the wording from Women to Vulva spaces. If it really needs that clarity, then perhaps we should do that.

But changing the wording from "women" to "vulva" makes it less clear, especially if you assimilate "neo-vulvas" to vulvas.

"Women" is clear. In a space with only women in it, there will never be a penis. There might be a neo-penis, but it will be attached to a woman still. Problem solved.

A cockless man is still a man.

Why are you angsting about this? The law is clear. Single SEX spaces are segregated by SEX.

Any extreme body modification or mutilation a man chooses fo indulge in is just that. They’re not women, so they stay out of women’s single sex spaces. It’s really clear and easy.

I see what you're saying, but I'd rather no men at all, and given some men will claim they have a vulva, it's the same issue as using the word women.

Much easier if people just accept that they can only use the single sex designed for what they are not what they want to be. And sex, not gender.

Why is the word woman an insufficient descriptor of an adult human female?

why should we resort to body parts to define ourselves?

I can tell you why, because trans identifying men tried to nick more than one of our female exclusive words. Trans women. And we want it back

HTH

No, women only spaces is just fine. No rewording necessary. Men just need to stay out. Very simple and easy. I'm sure you'd agree?👍

Btw - Your change of wording from 'they' to 'we' is noted and (sorry!) too little too late... 😬

Exactly. We do not want to examine anyone else's crotch to check they are allowed in so therefore the configuration of the crotch is irrelevant.

How about "if you have XY chromosomes or if you might alarm women by looking convincingly as if you have XY chromosomes then please do not use this space. Gender neutral facilities are available (give directions) if you prefer not to use the men's.

The other day I was at a zoo and the person doing a feeding talk came out with a bucket of fish and the male friend with me said "oh the chap's arrived it must be about to start" - they had short hair alright and any boobs were undifferentiated from belly due to being somewhat overweight but it was obvious from gait and bone structure that they were a woman, and I was feeling it was rather sexist of my friend to call them a chap as women don't have to follow feminine stereotypes to be a woman. Then the microphone went on and they introduced themself (in a clealy female voice) as "Mark". And Mark has every right to use that name and present that way but would frankly be quite welcome in an XX only space as far as I am concerned as there's a lot more to being convincingly male than a short haircut and trousers, and Mark was entirely unalarming and visibly and audibly female. However I am suspecting that being able to clock at a glance whether someone is male or female is a survival trait that women have developed but is simply not there, or not developed, in men which might be a contributory factor to transwomen thinking that they "pass"?

I'm going to join you now.

This has been another thread where MN posters ignore what is actually said or get snide, mocking or angry because someone had an opinion that is different theirs. (Sometimes when the opinion is the same just worded differently.)

I'd rather not normalise such horrific mutilation. How could any medical professional bring himself to do such a thing to a human being, it doesn't bear thinking about, let alone casually referred to as op has done.

Cutting off a healthy body part and crafting it into a totally different shape - it's completely nightmarish, a horror movie. Like cutting off a nose and trying to make it look like a mouth. I can't understand how it is allowed at all in regulated hospitals.