UK Supreme Court, Biological Women, Gender Privileges, and Segregated Bathrooms

[Valerian]

Recent debates surrounding the UK Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of biological women have reignited public discourse on transgender inclusion, particularly regarding access to gendered spaces. As an observer unaffiliated with feminist or transgender activism, I find that this issue reflects less an ideological clash and more a fight over exclusive gender privileges—privileges that conservative feminist groups are reluctant to share with the transwomen community.

A key question arises: Why should public bathrooms be segregated by gender or sex at all? The common argument—that men might sexually assault women if allowed into women’s restrooms—is rooted in assumptions about male violence. Feminists, while rejecting rape as a certainty, argue that women feel vulnerable or violated if a transwoman sees them in a state of privacy. But this logic is inconsistent: if women are comfortable being seen by other biological women, why is a transwoman, who identifies and presents as a woman, any more objectionable?

This leads to a practical suggestion: Why not simply shut the bathroom door closed during private moments? If they don’t care about doing it openly and don’t mind their privacy being seen by biological women, why should they care so much if it is a transwoman. it can surely be maintained with transwomen as well—assuming privacy protocols are followed.

The real issue may lie in risk and safety. A transwoman forced to use a men's restroom risks humiliation or even physical harm due to widespread anti-trans sentiment. That same individual likely faces far less danger in a women’s restroom. In a unisex restrooms such problem may not exist. Feminists, who champion inclusion, equality, and empathy, often fall silent when confronted with this inconvenient reality. History offers a parallel: once, Black individuals were barred from sharing public spaces with whites on the basis of similar "moral discomfort."

Do feminists advocate for gender-segregated bathrooms in their own homes, workplaces, or among friends and colleagues? If not, then the inconsistency is apparent.

A bold solution: eliminate gendered bathrooms altogether and install CCTV cameras (excluding private stalls) to ensure public safety and behavioral compliance. Would conservatives or feminists support this idea? Or does the real resistance stem from a desire to maintain entrenched privileges under the guise of moral and gender ideals?

[PorcelainLark]

https://imgdrop.io/image/399709196-6908 ... nail.8mBn8

[Bookshelf]

That solution is a good one, but unfortunately it's antithetical to the purpose of anti-trans movements to begin with.

They want gender segregation; not just trans people kept out of bathrooms or whatever else. They want there to be clear enforced social differences between men and women — different clothing, different ways of speaking, different names, different jobs, different conjugal roles, different hobbies, etc. This is largely the case to justify traditional roles in men and women, primarily the freedom that a husband has in terms of jobs, income and his free time; compared to what is effectively a legal sex slave found in his wife, whose job is to serve him and run the house for him round-the-clock. This dynamic is justified by the supposed differences between men and women, most of which are of a social nature.

In short, if men and women are practically the same save for a few biological differences that are practically irrelevant in day to day life, conservatives can't justify the dynamic described above. We're going to be hearing every excuse under the sun to defend this until the idea of traditional conjugal roles dies out, and any movement (such as the trans movement) that would interfere with it it will be targeted.

I'm not entirely sure why some feminist organizations are anti-trans though. It seems counterproductive.

[Valerian]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My original post, however, wasn’t defending such ideologies. Rather, it questioned the consistency of certain feminist arguments for gender-segregated spaces, especially when safety and privacy concerns can be addressed in inclusive ways. I appreciate your broader sociopolitical framing—it adds depth to the conversation.

[Outis]

The risk to women seems small but the risk of embarassment or even humiliation to trans people seems high.

I would favour a move towards increased privacy for toilet users, separate stalls available to either sex. Many women push for equality while many embrace traditional differences. Separate unisex stalls seems the most neutral option since it doesn't differentiate or add new risk. Males can still have separate urinals. Overall it would require more space and wouldn't easily retrofit older buildings, but for new buildings it could be accommodated. I have seen toilets like this in some restaurants but not often.

[Bookshelf]

I think, to connect it with MAP struggles, the ruling is somewhat of a step back for us too. Generally this ruling just empowers the conservative anti-sex crowd which makes it harder for us, especially since a lot of that crowd equates transgenderism with pedophilia.