Services and spaces should be separated according to gender, not sex

[BackToLurk]

Because that’s the argument isn’t it? If trans rights activists and their allies accept that no one changes sex, then what they are really arguing for is that any separation should actually be made on the basis of gender.

As I’m a helpful sort, I’ve started a whole thread for people to make that argument. Off you go fellas. Bring your brightest. Make your case. I really do want to hear it. (And I’m not, for once, being sarcastic).

@Boiledbeetle
😂😊 totally non thread related but I say that all the time! (Kentish person who worked in Wrexham years and years ago…)

Trans women are men and can use the men's. Trans men are women and can use the women's. Or you can provide a couple of unisex toilets. Most people want sex segregated toilet provision and though they may not complain are going to be unhappy. Some will be unhappy enough never to set foot in e.g. the Watershed ever again.
Off piste, if the two cubicles are labelled 'women' and 'trans inclusive' this is the obvious place for trans men to use, since they are women. Ditto the toilet + urinals labelled 'men' and 'trans inclusive as this is the obvious place for trans women to use since they are men. A lot of confusion would end if we used sensible language e.g. trans women are women who identify as male and trans men are men who identify as female. These two word salads are anyway confused by the general public which is perhaps one reason why there was initial support for 'trans women' in women's sport but now it has filtered through that 'trans women' are actually men and the clarification has led to a loss of support (and one wonders whether this confusion was intended).
Two blocks with urinals in one and cubicles in the other would cause problems since men sometimes need to poo and would therefore need to go to the cubicle option, which most women would prefer they stayed out of. Women must partially undress to urinate and this makes them vulnerable to attack in toilets.

I probably should have said trans rights activists, their allies and others in the OP, as some of the ‘middle ground’ people, also argue for some spaces to be separated on gender.

I do think my initial optimism, that some of the advocates for these ‘single-gender’ spaces would take the opportunity to expand on their reasoning, may have been premature.

OK. So this is about the services and spaces that do.

@Grammarnut I want single sex spaces, not single gender, not mixed sex.

I'm simply putting forward the argument that single gender spaces don't make any sense at all. Anyone who doesn't want single sex spaces should logically advocate for all spaces to be available to anyone who chooses them. The only reason to advocate for single gender spaces would be for validation of TIMs and TIFs and/or to service a fetish.

I think that they are all busy writing to complain to anyone they can think of about the Welsh Gender Service cancelling surgeries and surgery referrals.

Yes. It seems the gender idea is either a binary (or binary- plus- "non-binary") system derived from sex, or a limitation of personality to a larger but arbitrary number of labels. There is no overall coherence.

Slightly different question, but what is the best steel-man version of the genderist argument?

I see three (I’m not that interested in discussing why these fail or don’t generalise, as I suspect everyone on this board largely agrees on that. But I’m interested what people think the best arguments are).

1. the “witness protection” argument (Helen Joyce). Yes it’s a lie and yes it may create some risk, but as society we accept there are sometimes exceptional cases that demand this. Provided the numbers aren’t high, we can accommodate this. The acute distress averted for the few who need it is worth the mild discomfort or slightly elevated risk for everyone else.
2. The argument that sex-based separation is unnecessary in most cases it’s applied anyway, and undermining that is thus a good thing (like a “must speak Chinese” rule for roles that don’t in fact require it, it’s an unjust barrier).
3. The argument that singling out sex-based risk stats is unfair. (Eg one wouldn’t do it for race or nationality even if crime stats show large disparities). Dealing with large disparities in risk is part and parcel of having a civilised society. Singling trans people out as the exception to this is unfair.

Just to repeat, these aren’t arguments I think ultimately are convincing. But I think these are the strongest ones I’ve heard.

Gender is a societal reflection on the stereotype of a man or woman at this point in time.

As it is an outside snapshot no one can change or transition gender - they simply change the perception… so a man in a dress doesn’t reflect a female gender, they change perception of being a man to include wearing dresses…

so your gender is the same as your sex as the only truth is your biology

all those born male remain male… the society perception of the male stereotype can change and does (high heels came into the UK for men, they are now seen as a female item etc) but whatever a man does they remain male

so it is pointless to define anything by gender as it changes pattern and appearance every day, the only constant is the underlying sex so anyone with a male gender can only have been born male and vv

TLDR - your sex is biological and immutable and defines your gender - so no point using anything other than sex.

If we make provision for the genderists, then we have to make provision for all the other subcults, where are the provisions for the punks, the emo's, the goths etc.
We're gonna need a bigger planet.

So, the posters who constantly derail legitimate topics with their nonsense and word salads, who love to describe women who want single sex spaces and services as bigoted fools, are nowhere to be found on this thread?🤔That's interesting to say the least.

It’s quite the head scratcher. I’m happy for them to be directed over here next time they derail.

Like I said, helpful.

I would absolutely love for someone like Nadia Whittome to argue her case for this. She posts polemics on her social media and she gets some really constructive replies, including from legal professionals, but she never ever engages with them.

I think number 1 probably would have the best traction with the public at large. It is roughly the situation we had back in the day, when there was just a handful of HSTS men using women's spaces and most women rarely encountered them. I don't think that I would have spent so much money, time and effort trying to dislodge them as I have with this current crop of TIMs. However, as frequently directed, I educated myself and realised that the HSTS men violate our privacy, dignity and safety just as much as other men.

Number 2 is a queer theory argument and jo/joe public would just say 'wtf?'.

Number 3 is also a bit of a niche sell. I think most people would decide that you need the stats in order to address the risks to as well as from a group.

Edit to add last 7 words.

I got the impression that they were mostly absent from the whole of FWR in the second half of yesterday, but I only dipped in and out myself so I'm not certain of this.

The navy dealt with the one Satanist in a crew, who insisted on his right to worship as his conscience dictated, by giving him a sail-locker for his chapel, and shutting him into it for the duration of every church parade.

NB: I have no idea what they meant by a sail-locker, since the ship was nuclear-powered. Something small and uncomfortable, I suspect. And I don't know what they would have done if a Pastafarian then came to light in one of the messes; lost patience, probably, or insisted they use the same chapel in rotation, or something equally practical.

@BackToLurk I note that you have had no takers yet. I'm so surprised!
Yet again, the magic word goes undefined.

A derail, sorry, I can't help myself😏

There's a story told about a smartarse student at one of the posh old unis, it might well have been Trinity College Dublin, in the days when attendance at religious service was obligatory.
He put down his religion as 'Sunworshipper' and looked forward to long lie-ins.
Instead, he was rudely awoken at 6am by a college servant knocking on the door and calling out 'Sir, the sun is rising in half an hour, you'll want to be up to worship it!'

I think this is a fair point.

I don't want services to be randomly segregated for no obvious reason. It is important to me that when they do discriminate they are complying with the Equality Act.

I have no idea why a service would be segregated by gender. It just sounds either complete meaningless or a license to exclude based on reasons that nobody understands.

The only sort of services I know of that are segregated, male from female, would be ultra-orthodox Jewish, and some but not all Muslim. I don't think Christianity has ever practised segregation by sex at services, and I don't know enough about such religions as Daoism or Zoroastrianism to have the faintest idea how sexist they are in their worship.

(Yes, I know perfectly well this was not the sort of service that was meant in the OP, but I was sort of led to it by the sail-locker.)

And there would be no point in segregation by gender in these circs, nor would it be feasible. Nor do I think God would give a tuppeny fsck.

Most services aren’t separated. They aren’t relevant. Having said that, there are those that use this subject to pushback against anything being offered separately.

So we just had a case in my area where a man (not a trans woman, nothing trans) has been convicted of taking thousands of pictures of women and girls in our local leisure centre swimming pool changing rooms. They have cubicals but there is nothing else to separate them by sex. It’s just one big mixed sex area.

The point is you can’t stop vile men with agendas but you don’t have to make it easier for them either. And this open/mixed environment made it easier.

And I would argue that to have prevented and protected one child from being photographed in a state of undress - is enough to warrant putting certain barriers such as properly segregated changing areas in a swimming pool.

It’s all nonsense with the ultimate goal of removing women’s rights to spaces without men.

apparently “very special men” with professed ladyfeels having access to womens changing rooms is a vital civil rights issue (but only for the “very special men” of course not for the women or girls).

Some Buddhists separate some services.

i don’t know enough to know why.

Thanks! But I suspect it's not what I would call usual, these days, in any religion.

I don't think the Southern Baptists do it, do they? They're the ones I'd think most likely to have taken it up recently. And whatever sect Mike Pence belongs to that makes him not want to be alone with any woman other than "Mother", even in full sight in a restaurant.