I would imagine universal toilets (which are available) are the easiest option.
But again, I would support something else put forward that would give the similar protections and rights.
Let me also clarify, this doesn’t mean every single toilet, it’s specific to the law, where the single sex safe space has been specifically provided.
So most normal public toilets are fine, no one overly argues it over here and nor would I.
The arguement is at those specifically deemed safe spaces for that protected sex as I stated.
Well, @Randomhero1982, I’ll just say then, that I disagree with your position on who can / should be “allowed” entrance into restrooms designated for women. I think it’s discriminatory.
Ultimately, I really don’t give a hoot who uses which restroom as long as they don’t pee on my foot or try to stab me. After all, it’s just a fucking toilet.
As a side note, where I live, there are certain places women frequently use a restroom designated for men because the facility hasn’t enough designated for women - think sports stadiums. Interestingly, no one reports permanent damage because of it.
And i respect your opinion.
Yes, I’m picking nits here:
I don’t respect your opinion.
I do, however, absolutely respect your right to hold an opinion.
Where it gets sticky, for all of us, concerns the legal ramifications of those opinions. 
And that is what is important CyberLN and this was my very first initial point on this thread.
It’s all too easy to name call, to strawman, to commit fallacy after fallacy.
But it’s far better to have a civil conversation, so again, I thank you.
I do feel I ought to flush it out better in regards to explaining it better, but I did give the legislation as ‘data’.
Just an FYI, it doesn’t mean every space cannot be used, lets say the toilet at a stadium or a shopping centre (mall in the US i believe) its specifically directed at biological womens protected spaces.
So that would be very limited in scope, but I do think it ought to be respected.
So the perfect example would be the toilet of a maternity ward.
Others may be… communal changing rooms at public swimming pools, womens refuge centres etc…
But again I respect everyones opinions.
Another good point though from this case at the high court was that ‘gender reassignment’ was one of the characteristics passed in the law… this gives trans people protections in work, education and against harassment, which I think is great.
Are single sex safe spaces created/provided for trans women? or is that only something non-trans women get?
What about trans men? what about regular male gay people? How many dedicated safe spaces do we need?
3 Likes
In reality we don’t need ANY unless someone can demonstrate that current public restrooms are unsafe for anyone by any means other than bare assertion or appeals to their own irrational concerns. You’ll look in vain for an epidemic of trans women in any way threatening or assaulting biological women while on the public toilet. It’s a literal non-problem. People demanding special safe zones because something hypothetically, possibly could happen that has virtually never happened, are really demanding that things not change, that their expectations never be violated, and in fact, that others must accommodate them rather than the inverse. It’s selfish and privileged and exclusionary and disrespectful.
The facts are these:
-
According to actual empirical research, there’s no evidence of an actual problem.
-
The “bathroom predator” myth is historically almost entirely about cisgender women being at risk. Oddly, not about cisgender men.
-
Actual threats are against trans people.
-
Experts and advocates argue that the fear surrounding trans people in bathrooms is not about safety, but about transphobia and a desire to control gender norms. Bathroom bans rely on negative stereotypes to create a climate of fear.
I do not buy that these attempts at bans (or euphemisms like “providing safe spaces”) are anything but fear-mongering and moral panics. There are not actual problems that need solving.
1 Like
I think this explains it for me, are they necessary. I have seen no evidence that anyone is in any danger from trans women, so this just seems like an emotional response to something they are unfamiliar with, The kind most people would have had to gay men not that long ago, now hardly anyone cares.
1 Like
I will leave this conversation here.
To those that engaged reasonably I thank you, i appreciate your points of views.
Reading the last few comments though, it’s clear this cannot be discussed sensibly.
The continual strawman of the arguement is becoming tedious and boring… not once was their a claim of violence being made.
I’ve been clear throughout on that, but its ignored to frame the arguement in a different light.
A ‘safe place’ or ‘protected space’ does not imply or infer violence is an issue, as that is consistantly not being understood, I cannot be bothered to keep reiterating it.
Again though, thank you for at least not being rude and being civil and allowing me to at least try to explain.
And again, my overall point was simply that I have various opinions, many that are left leaning and a few that would be considered right leaning… nothing more.
Hope you all have a lovely weekend.
If someone is asking for safety, then definitionally they are alleging danger or they wouldn’t need something special to feel safe. Maybe they aren’t alleging (just implying) violence or potential violence, but they feel threatened. Should they? Per the study I cited, absolutely not. The same study also had the presence of mind to ask trans people about their actual experience, and in their case, they actually are being threatened and excluded and humiliated.
Aside from all that, the theoretical notion that trans people would be equally entitled to their own safe spaces is not a good faith argument because we all know that based on economics alone, there are not going to be, e.g., widespread restrooms provided specifically for trans people when they represent a fraction of one percent of the population. It would be even less successful than segregated bathrooms in the Jim Crow South were.
I don’t know what its like elsewhere but here in the US we have about half the people unable to objectively see their own rational self interest or larger and more nuanced issues like what promotes or degrades a civil society. It’s why we can’t have nice things here in the US anymore. People who need safe spaces to protect themselves from (to borrow from another thread here lately) “possible” but highly unlikely harms, are really just demanding that they maintain their privilege in preference to being inclusive and supportive of others.
3 Likes
What about women who transition to men, should they be kept out of men’s safe places or would they have to use the bathroom and change rooms of their biological gender. And for that matter men who transitions to women and expected to use mens wash rooms, change rooms etc. are perhaps at greater danger from other men than the danger they may pose to women. There are no safe places for them.
4 Likes
Right, so that is 4 different kinds of bathrooms. its time for the unisex bathroom (or single occupant bathrooms/etc).
1 Like
I’m all for non-designated bathrooms. They work on airplanes.
3 Likes
The tiny bathrooms on airplanes could hardly be categorised as “working”, with the cramped space and everything. So there you have it, evidence that unisex/non-designated bathrooms do not work 
/s
2 Likes
A bit of trivia here, the baby changing tables in plane toilets are the highest request by far for spares, I shall leave it to your imagination as to precisely why this article breaks far more often than anything else in the toilet / plane.
3 Likes
Hi! I’m not a lunatic.
Hi all, apologies for not replying, been very unwell of late… turns out to be liver function and now pre diabetic… yay, go team!
Anywhooo, just wanted to state again, the initial thrust of my point if you go to where I first stated it is that we all have different opinion and that’s fine.
I dislike this notion of late (mostly from theists) that all atheists are left wing, democrats (in the us) etc…
I’m an atheist, probably as far hard atheist as you get, but my opinions vary greatly… Another demonstration of this, away from the trans/safe spaces point I made is, i’m pro womens choice and anti gun (or any weapon, knives are a huge issue in the uk).
Then on the flip side I’m very pro free speech, which at least here is not viewed how I wish it was.
Anyways, hope you are all well… All the best.
2 Likes
Sorry to hear it. I was pre-diabetic for a decade or so and then for the past decade slipped into actual diabetes. It is definitely a royal pain in the patootie, but livable, and even somewhat preventable. I have bad genes in that regard from my mother’s side of the family and I’m not sure I could have avoided the diagnosis; you might have better luck. What I found helpful though was to identify the top two things in my diet that were problematic (for me, soft drinks and bread) and eliminate those rather than try to attack everything at once … what remained was still enjoyable and it subtracted about 75 pounds from my frame and probably spared me the fate of my older brother who currently is missing half of one foot and running on an insulin pump.
YMMV, but don’t lose hope. You have more control than you think, or that doctors will typically give you real guidance on. Maybe ask for a referral to an actual dietician. In any event – best of luck to you.
Agreed. It is a misunderstanding of what atheism is and isn’t.
Thank you,
Yes, I’ve been told I’m obviously young enough to reverse this and get healthy again, but it has took it’s toll.
Started off as just blurred vision of sorts and just almost perpetually tired… then migraines and dizziness.
Getting there though, lost quite a bit of weight and as you said, eating a lot healthier and cleaner… main thing has been like you said, bread products.
Will take time but will get there.
1 Like