I used to be Pagan, and I frequently encountered women-only spaces, such as rituals, classes, and support groups that only permitted women to attend. I hated these and eventually stopped going to any. I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that there are some areas where it’s valuable to exclude half the population. I question the idea that there are some topics where women can only feel “safe” without the presence of men. I don’t mean that I doubt that some women can only feel safe this way. I just question whether that’s a fear that should be coddled and left unquestioned.

I’m aware that some rape-crisis centers and shelters are only open to women, both for employees and for people seeking their services. While this idea is often assumed to be beyond reproach, I still think it brings up troubling aspects. Some shelters prevent women from bringing male children over a certain age, for example. This can lead women to have to choose between getting protection for themselves and caring for their children. The woman-only policy ignores the possibility that women can be violent to women, perhaps leading to a false sense of security.

Also, I have never quite understood the apparent tendency of rape and domestic violence victims to extrapolate their experience to a fear of men. Men are not violent. Men are not rapists. Some men are violent and some men are rapists. Most rapists are men. But these are aberrant crimes, not a pervasive, inherent behavior in the entire male population. If I were to be the victim of a violent crime at the hands of a man, I wonder if it might not be helpful to have immediate access to caring, supportive men. Still, I can only imagine myself as a victim of a violent crime and can only speculate as to my reaction to a situation like that. There’s no denying that many women do develop a general fear of men, and they wish their support resources to be women only.

Another wrinkle is developing, though.

A rape and domestic violence shelter in Vancouver has won through the courts (all the way to the Canada Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case) the right to exclude trans women from their shelter. The case was brought by Kimberly Nixon, a trans women who was refused employment. The center, called Rape Relief, maintains that they wish to provide “women only” space. Their position makes it clear that they do not consider trans women to be women at all. This turns their “women only” space into “some women only” or “only people who are women enough“. Does that mean that butch women are not allowed since they might remind someone of a man? Does it mean that a trans man would be allowed?

Many people have been following this case  primarily for the interest in trans rights and trans discrimination. It certainly brings up a lot of questions and concerns on that front. I’m looking at it from the perspective of limiting access to your space in the first place.

I have a long-standing gripe with the concept of “trigger warnings”, the idea that you should warn people before mentioning something that might trigger psychological distress. I find it personally irritating to be expected to babysit my own words or behavior by guessing what might and might not be upsetting to others. I also wonder about the wisdom in seeking to remove from your sight the things that bother you.

When you are talking about personal, intimate spaces, limiting your exposure to unwanted elements is easier and not usually problematic. If I only want to hang out with women or men or old people or people of my own race or political party or whatever, that’s do-able and not even very noticeable. In the aftermath of a violent crime, if I seek out my women friends because I want female comfort, this, too, is hard to critique.

The problem comes when we’re talking about  large-scale organizations that serve “the public”. The Boy Scouts are an example of this - wanting to include “everyone”, except for girls, homosexuals, and atheists. Women’s shelters fall into the same problem. We would likely complain if an abuse shelter wanted to limit themselves to a certain race or a certain age demographic or a certain weight limit. That they limit themselves to one gender seems to generally go unchallenged. Now, though, comes to the forefront the idea that even gender is not an easily partitioned concept.

Rather than argue about which people are “true women” or which women are “women enough”, I think the entire topic of delegating through policy who is eligible for your help or not is worth reconsidering.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark