lpm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 7:05 pm
While I agree with everything you've said on this thread Fishnut, there's a lot more that could be said. For example rethinking some past views on safe spaces away from male violence and harassment. I don't believe you'd still state that women traumatised by male violence should be educated about inclusion instead of provided with a women only space.
I think a rereading of those Guardian articles would show the concern is cis male violence, not fear of trans people, and neither article is transphobic in their concerns over cis male violence and harassment. Both are 100% clear about where the violent threat to women, trans people and minorities comes from - the minority of men who attack directly or condone indirectly. This particular case is one of many showing the extreme lengths predatory men will go to in order to improve their chances of assaulting and raping women and girls, along with lesser harassment or indecent exposure, and the active support they receive from other men. I agree completely with the calls to understand the fears and experiences of women and surely none of us should start deeming some fears unacceptable?
And I don't think we can stay silent about men using sex workers for their violent abuse or exploiting women via violent p.rnography. Men like this murderer purchase the right to abuse long before they kill on the streets. Anyone concerned about indecent exposure being a gateway drug to violence should be much more concerned about the violence of the sex industry being a more direct gateway. Violent men see the passive or active acceptance by other men (and women) of sex industry abuse and are encouraged and feel normalised. Remaining silent and hoping the problem goes away isn't the answer.
I don't believe I've advocated for the removal of women-only spaces, particularly not for traumatised women. What I have stated, and continue to state, is that those spaces should accept trans women, which they already do and have done for years without issue.
I have re-read the Guardian articles and I see very clear transphobic dog-whistles in their concern over single-sex spaces being violated by cis men.
The Observer editorial stated that,
Male politicians apparently feel empowered to carelessly advocate for the end of the single-sex safe spaces that are protected by the Equality Act without acknowledging the consequences for women traumatised by male violence.
Male politicians are not advocating for the end of single-sex spaces, they - along with many women - are saying that all women should have access to women-only spaces, not just a subset. The fact the piece highlights that men rather than the women are doing this advocacy is because there is a trope in transphobic circles that only men are advocating for trans women to have access to women-only spaces while women want trans women to be excluded. This is despite the fact that as of last year (the most recent year I can get figures) women were significantly
more supportive of trans people being able to self-identify than men.
The Catherine Bennett piece stated that,
These single-sex spaces – from refuges to hospital wards and rest rooms – historically protected women by excluding men where women were particularly vulnerable. #Notallmen, of course, but that’s safeguarding. “Preventative measures,” as Professor Kathleen Stock writes in Material Girls, “are usually by necessity broad-brush. They aren’t supposed to be a character reference for a group as a whole.”
But there are now questions about their survival, partly because of their increasing, arbitrary replacement by gender-neutral spaces, partly because of possible changes to gender-recognition law. These could, as an unintended consequence, leave women – both trans and not – with almost nowhere they don’t have to glance over their shoulders. As Alessandra Asteriti and Rebecca Bull argued in Modern Law Review: “Opening spaces to those who self-declare their sex and who are perceived as males” will “embolden male opportunists to enter single-sex spaces, reducing their risk-mitigation role”.
But public debate has been minimal. Not least because some of the same people who, unsatisfied by “bad apple” excuses, demand to know what safeguards prevent the police from harbouring another Couzens, will also scorn any questions about what, in future, could prevent the same sort of opportunist from appearing in women-only changing rooms. The implications of everyday harassment, along with the data on male violence and killings such as Everard’s and Sabina Nessa’s, are liable to be ridiculed in this different context as invented “bathroom bogeymen”.
Refuges are, have been and continue to be women-only spaces. I can find nothing that suggests that there are mixed-sex refuges in the UK, though I'm happy to be corrected.
Hospital wards may well be more mixed-sex than they have in the past (in 2011 they were "
the norm"). I can't find any recent figures but
this piece from 2017 says the number of people on mixed-sex wards has "soared" due to "a lack of available beds" and given the chronic underfunding faced by the NHS and increased patient demand due to covid I suspect those figures have only got worse. That has nothing to do with a desire to provide "gender-neutral spaces".
The problem with "rest rooms" (I'm guessing she means toilets) isn't that they're now all gender-neutral, it's that they're impossible to find. Cuts to funding have meant that many public toilets have closed, leaving people unable to leave home for significant periods of time. The Guardian
reported last year that,
...readers across Britain have described their anxiety, distress and frustration as public toilet closures – coupled with the absence of alternatives in bars, restaurants and public buildings – curtails their daily movements.
This is especially the case for women, who are taking extreme measures such as deliberately dehydrating themselves or find they are confined to home during their period. A pregnant woman from London told how she developed a urinary tract infection after being unable to find a toilet on a trip to Hyde Park. For those with health conditions and disabilities that bring continence problems, the situation is even worse: some describe themselves as essentially housebound. Key workers and volunteers making lengthy round trips to deliver essentials are likewise affected.
These spaces have always been open to people who "self-declare" their sex, and public 'women-only' spaces are accessible by men already. How many toilets have a sign saying that there are male attendants on duty? What's easier for a man to do - dress up as a woman and pretend he's female or buy a pair of overalls and say he's the cleaner? Or even just walk in claiming the men's toilets are broken? Men are allowed in women's toilets, just as women are allowed in men's - it's only social convention that keeps us to "our" side and can often be broken - I'm not the only woman who's used the empty gents because the line for the ladies has been ridiculously long. What is, has always been, and always will be illegal is to commit a crime in those toilets. Whether you're a woman or a man, if you assault someone then you can and should be prosecuted.
What is striking to me is how the threats to these women-only spaces, in contrast to the arguments given by the articles, do not come from cis men trying to enter them under false pretences to commit crimes but come instead from under-funding. Refuges for both men and women are chronically underfunded, a situation which is
only getting worse,
More than one in five refuge services running in November 2020, were not funded by their local authority, and most of those that were saw a real-terms cut in their funding last year.
Sixty out of 269 refuge services were surviving on emergency government funding pots, charitable grants, trusts and other fundraising activities, according to a new report published by Women’s Aid...
There were 269 refuge services with a total of 4,251 refuge spaces available in England on 1 November 2020.
There was a 24.5% shortfall in the number of refuge spaces that should be available and without the non-commissioned spaces, the existing shortfall would increase to 42.5%...
Specialist ‘by and for’ domestic abuse services for Black and minoritised women “have been disproportionately impacted by cuts and competitive tendering processes”... A much higher percentage, 57.5% (146 out of 254), of spaces in these services were provided by non-commissioned refuge services, compared to an overall 18.5%.
What is so frustrating with these complaints that we're losing single-sexed spaces is that the blame is being placed in the wrong place. The GRA reform is not to blame (not least because you don't need a GRC to access these spaces anyway) - lack of funding is. If we had more domestic abuse shelters then we could have specialist shelters for all different people. Domestic abuse in
same-sex relationships is a real problem yet there's no specialist domestic abuse refuges for lesbian women or gay men to use. Trans women are
more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse as cis women yet there are no specialist services catering to them. "More than one in ten LGBT people (11 per cent) have faced domestic abuse from a partner in the last year. This increases to 17 per cent of black, Asian and minority ethnic LGBT people" according to
this report from 2018 yet, again, there are no specialist services available to these victims.
If we improved funding to the NHS, to refuges, to public facilities, then there could be gender-specific services for everyone, however they identify. But even if that happened, people like Couzens would still be a threat because we need to address the culture of misogyny that permeates society and draws people like him to positions of power and influence. Couzens could easily have got a job as a bathroom attendant and had access to women literally with their knickers down every day. But he didn't, because there's no status as a bathroom attendant and no accompanying protection. The first woman who reported him perving on them would likely result in him being fired. Instead he chose a position that afforded him power and status that could be used to protect him to the extent that he could abduct a woman in full view of witnesses and no-one - not the witnesses, not the victim - thought that anything untoward was happening. He used his official warrant card to convince her he was legitimate. He used his official handcuffs to restrain her. And he used his official belt to strangle her to death. No amount of safe spaces can protect us against that and focusing on them rather than the systems and culture that allowed a man like Couzens to attain and retain a position from which he could think he could literally get away with murder is a distraction.
