Female only space protects female safety. Purely that. Nothing more.
Safety is a human right, not a privilege.
The Victorians, when promoting public hygiene , noted that sex segregated hygiene facilities were essential for female participation In society.
This had nothing to do with modesty, or prudishness, just safety.
Male only spaces do not, and have never, existed to ensure male safety.
They exist to protect, promote, and promulgate the privileges of males, and only males.
Naturally , there’s a furore when either segregation is challenged, as illustrated in the following podcast – http://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2015/may/18/1 – regarding the. Garrick Club.
After all, who wishes to give up their safety?
Who wishes to give up their privilege?
Nobody. That’s who.
And some in society use “equality” as an excuse to keep their privilege whilst ensuring females never achieve actual equality.
Thus…..they insist that access *must* work both ways.
That if females are to access privilege , males *must* have unfettered access to females.
Cuz equality, cuz gender neutral.
Cuz – ugh – “cis privilege”.
Are females seriously expected to accept the certainty of rape in exchange for a fair bite of the apple?
Back to the Victorians. They accepted that female participation in society hinged on female safety.
By now I’m sure you’re following me, that equality is being used as an excuse to turn back female progress, by ensuring females don’t feel safe, don’t participate.
Because if females don’t feel safe, females will lose what they’ve fought for and died for- equality.
The backlash is wrapped in the language of liberalism, and liberals, duped by such language , act as happy enablers.
Whether it be gender identity, or the normalising of sex work and pornography.
Furthermore, they pile on anyone (or like the cowards they are, silently applaud) who calls this out, if necessary co-opting the language of inclusion and safety.
To silence females.
To exclude females.
To deprive females of equality.
Ironic isn’t it, that only conservatives* and radical feminists seem able to understand the following truth – that in order to treat people truly equally, truly fairly, it is not necessary or even right, to treat them all the “same”.
It is “equal pay for work of equal value” , NOT “equal pay for work of equal risk” or “equal pay for only same work” for instance.
And bingo. Here we have it. The equality reversal to reverse equality.
You almost have to admire the ingenuity.
* It’s important to note what conservatives really mean by equality, however.
As with religious complementarianism it’s often used to cloak the fact that females should always accept subordination, in order to be equally loved.
** conservatives and liberals. One is patriarchy dressed in a suit of paternalism, the other is patriarchy and paternalism, often wearing a dress.