Labour MP says 'merit' in women-only train carriages

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Women-only train carriages could combat the rise in sexual offences on public transport, a Labour MP has said.

Shadow fire minister Chris Williamson said it would be "worth consulting" on the policy after such crimes doubled in the past five years.

However, Labour colleagues have criticised the move as "normalising attacks".

Party leader Jeremy Corbyn first suggested the policy during his leadership election campaign in 2015.

Mr Williamson, MP for Derby North, highlighted figures from the British Transport Police, showing 1,448 sexual offences on trains had been reported in 2016-17, compared with 650 incidents in 2012-13.

He told PoliticsHome that women-only carriages - which have been tested in countries including Japan, Brazil and Mexico - could create a "safe space".

Later, he told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire show: "I'm not saying we should go down this road at all, I'm merely suggesting that we consult on it.

"If there is support for it, then providing an additional carriage to provide that safe space for people if they wanted it, offering that choice I think is worth looking at."

He told the programme there was a "clear need" for better security and more guards to tackle the problem, but that gender-specific trains could be an "idea worth exploring".

But he agreed there was a need to "push for behaviour change" so that "everybody can travel on public transport in complete safety".

The UK has seen these types of carriages before. Dating from as far back as the 1840s, British Rail had ladies-only compartments to protect women from public and verbal harassment.

About 100 still existed on services between London and Essex when the decision was made to phase them out altogether in 1977.

I'm sure segregation on already-overcrowded trains is going to be a fantastic idea...

Link.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's a popular and effective method in Japan. ("Shrug")

[Civil War Man]

There is a legitimate argument to be made in favor of having optional separate accommodations for groups that are frequently the target of harassment, threats, or even violence. Emphasis on optional, since there are also many legitimate reasons why, to use this hypothetical as an example, women may not want to ride in the separate carriage (not wanting to be forced to travel in a separate carriage than a male friend or family member, for instance).

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, I have no issue with basically creating a 'safe space' as long as it's voluntary. I'd want to see some attention paid to actually combating the problem directly though...

[K. A. Pital]

A voluntary separation of spaces into male and female on the train is very nice. This system has been in effect in Russia and I can't say anything against it. There are mixed compartments, female and male compartments. You can choose (of course, provided you book in advance).

Involuntarily splitting sexes into male and female compartments or carriages, like in Spain, is not a good idea. I didn't like running to another carriage just because there were no mixed compartments as such - only strictly male or female.

[Dartzap]

It was a standard thing for a long time to have women only compartments in carriages (when compartments were a thing) Started going out of fashion after it was twigged that you could assault/murder people in privacy.

Probably more practicable now with CCTV available. Now if you excuse me, I need to squeeze on to my commute home....

[Flagg]

There is a legitimate argument to be made in favor of having optional separate accommodations for groups that are frequently the target of harassment, threats, or even violence. Emphasis on optional, since there are also many legitimate reasons why, to use this hypothetical as an example, women may not want to ride in the separate carriage (not wanting to be forced to travel in a separate carriage than a male friend or family member, for instance).

Agreed. Having the option to not suffer harassment or assault (as is the case with gyms, where men routinely go to sit and leer at women exercising) is great. As long as it's optional.

[The Romulan Republic]

If optional, sure.

If not optional, fuck that.

[ArmorPierce]

Can we get a black train car then? And a Hispanic one? How about a Muslim one and Indian one while we're at it?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Even though it sounds like a good idea in principle, it's also totally impractical on British trains. The most crowded routes are strictly standing room only already, which means not only is it impossible to reach the women/men/other-only carriages, but inevitably there's going to be empty space on carriages when in the rest of the train passengers are packed like sardines already.

[Flagg]

Can we get a black train car then? And a Hispanic one? How about a Muslim one and Indian one while we're at it?

That's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin.

I mean you understand that this is an optional thing for women so they don't get groped by scumbags like President Cockroach, right?

[Flagg]

Even though it sounds like a good idea in principle, it's also totally impractical on British trains. The most crowded routes are strictly standing room only already, which means not only is it impossible to reach the women/men/other-only carriages, but inevitably there's going to be empty space on carriages when in the rest of the train passengers are packed like sardines already.

Yeah, that is a legitimate concern. I'm sure the logistics can be worked out (with the possibility of retractable dividers on each train car or something along those lines). I'm sure it would lead to confusion and delays. At least until the system is worked out and people get used to it. If the women's only car is routinely carrying fewer passengers then you chalk it up as a failed experiment and move on.

But I think it's worth at least trying, even if it's limited to only a few rail lines at first before expanding it if it's a success.

[Khaat]

I mean you understand that this is an optional thing for women so they don't get groped by scumbags like President Cockroach, right?

Oh, c'mon, Flagg, we all know the only trains Trump has ever been on are under-aged girls at an Epstein party....

[Zaune]

Personally, I think a better solution would be more frequent and/or longer trains so that they're less overcrowded (which would be a good thing anyway and make this sort of behaviour harder to get away with) and more on-train staff so that if something like this happens there's people on-hand to deal with it. I don't know to what extent conductors are trained to respond if passengers get belligerent but it might also be a good idea to make sure they have some of the same training as licensed private security guards; it can be a long way to the next station if some groper -or just a drunk, for that matter- freaks out and starts throwing punches.

[Broomstick]

Can we get a black train car then? And a Hispanic one? How about a Muslim one and Indian one while we're at it?

That's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin.

I mean you understand that this is an optional thing for women so they don't get groped by scumbags like President Cockroach, right?

No, it's not stupid. Except for the whole notion of segregating a group instead of punishing the bullies is stupid.

If women can demand harassment free cars why not any other group? This is one reason segregation is bad. Separate is not equal.

MY concern as a woman is that if you did institute "women-only" cars would groping on regular cars be seen as OK by a certain contingent of men? Would standing in a regular car be seen as "asking for it" because, hey, if she didn't want to be groped she'd be in purdah, right? Right?

[ArmorPierce]

Can we get a black train car then? And a Hispanic one? How about a Muslim one and Indian one while we're at it?

That's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin.

I mean you understand that this is an optional thing for women so they don't get groped by scumbags like President Cockroach, right?

Actually it's not stupid. It uses the same reasoning as independent train cars for women.

Each one of these groups have a history of harassment directed towards them, with some experiencing higher levels of street violence crimes .

How are you able to dismiss one but not the other?

Nevermind the fact that optional segregation reaffirms social expectations of segregation... some of the countries listed as having 'successful ' segregation policies suffer from huge sexist social practice.

[Flagg]

It's incredibly stupid because for one, women are subject to far more sexual assault on crowded trains than a specific ethnic group, and two it can be next to impossible to determine who the person committing the assault actually is.

[ArmorPierce]

And the racial minorities I listed are far more subject to violence directed towards them. Why are you only considering sexual assault?

Let's see places where this was 'successfully ' implemented.

Japan - country with no legal provision against sexual harassment in the work place

Mexico - regular practice of machismo culture

Brazil - similar macho culture with regular incidence of sexual harassment at work.

[Flagg]

And the racial minorities I listed are far more subject to violence directed towards them. Why are you only considering sexual assault?

Let's see places where this was 'successfully ' implemented.

Japan - country with no legal provision against sexual harassment in the work place

Mexico - regular practice of machismo culture

Brazil - similar macho culture with regular incidence of sexual harassment at work.

Because women are assaulted more? And are far less likely to report it? And we have gender segregated public bathrooms that are not optional, you want to get rid of those, too? Or is that an exception "because"?

[ArmorPierce]

And the racial minorities I listed are far more subject to violence directed towards them. Why are you only considering sexual assault?

Let's see places where this was 'successfully ' implemented.

Japan - country with no legal provision against sexual harassment in the work place

Mexico - regular practice of machismo culture

Brazil - similar macho culture with regular incidence of sexual harassment at work.

Because women are assaulted more? And are far less likely to report it? And we have gender segregated public bathrooms that are not optional, you want to get rid of those, too? Or is that an exception "because"?

Using the same rationale, yes I can favor eliminating women's bathrooms in favor of a unisex bathrooms. It would solve a lot of the gender identification issues.

I'm not completely against optional segregation. I question a group receiving special accommodations while another discriminated group does not.

[Flagg]

And the racial minorities I listed are far more subject to violence directed towards them. Why are you only considering sexual assault?

Let's see places where this was 'successfully ' implemented.

Japan - country with no legal provision against sexual harassment in the work place

Mexico - regular practice of machismo culture

Brazil - similar macho culture with regular incidence of sexual harassment at work.

Because women are assaulted more? And are far less likely to report it? And we have gender segregated public bathrooms that are not optional, you want to get rid of those, too? Or is that an exception "because"?

Using the same rationale, yes I can favor eliminating women's bathrooms in favor of a unisex bathrooms. It would solve a lot of the gender identification issues.

I'm not completely against optional segregation. I question a group receiving special accommodations while another discriminated group does not.

Because it's to prevent sexual assault on crowded trains you dumbass. See, different ethnicities and races don't have any meaningful biological differences that put them more at risk of sexual assault by groping pervs like Trumpzi. But, and you are incredibly stupid so this may come as a shock; Women are biologically different from men and are by far the largest group (as in 50% of the population) subject to sexual assault by males. On trains this is usually some kind of groping that on a packed train car cannot be escaped until the next stop and it can be nigh impossible to identify the attacker. You also then have a situation where a woman (or trans-woman) is so traumatized by the assault that she cannot use the train. How is that fair?

You would rather deny a convenient form of safe public transportation to 50% of the population than "give them special accommodations". That makes you stupid. And if you keep it up I'm going to start wondering why you don't want to protect women from sexual assault by setting aside a space where it is infinitely less likely to happen.

[ArmorPierce]

Because women are assaulted more? And are far less likely to report it? And we have gender segregated public bathrooms that are not optional, you want to get rid of those, too? Or is that an exception "because"?

Using the same rationale, yes I can favor eliminating women's bathrooms in favor of a unisex bathrooms. It would solve a lot of the gender identification issues.

I'm not completely against optional segregation. I question a group receiving special accommodations while another discriminated group does not.

Because it's to prevent sexual assault on crowded trains you dumbass. See, different ethnicities and races don't have any meaningful biological differences that put them more at risk of sexual assault by groping pervs like Trumpzi. But, and you are incredibly stupid so this may come as a shock; Women are biologically different from men and are by far the largest group (as in 50% of the population) subject to sexual assault by males. On trains this is usually some kind of groping that on a packed train car cannot be escaped until the next stop and it can be nigh impossible to identify the attacker. You also then have a situation where a woman (or trans-woman) is so traumatized by the assault that she cannot use the train. How is that fair?

You would rather deny a convenient form of safe public transportation to 50% of the population than "give them special accommodations". That makes you stupid. And if you keep it up I'm going to start wondering why you don't want to protect women from sexual assault by setting aside a space where it is infinitely less likely to happen.

You cannot win a debate so you resort to name calling and and questioning someone's motives. How typical. Go get fucked retard.

Your mentally challenged argument can be used for anything. Don't want to give each child an armed guard, by God, you must hate children! Now I realize you're probably going to say there's no costs involved, but actually, yes there is opportunity costs involved in terms of lost efficiency and resource allocation.

The truth is, societies employs this 'optional segregation ' happen to be the most sexist and mysgonist societies for a reason. the reason being It sets poor precedent for society overall.

Further, I think that this wish to extend women special accommodations but deny it to other groups demonstrates YOUR preconceived notions.

[Flagg]

Using the same rationale, yes I can favor eliminating women's bathrooms in favor of a unisex bathrooms. It would solve a lot of the gender identification issues.

I'm not completely against optional segregation. I question a group receiving special accommodations while another discriminated group does not.

Because it's to prevent sexual assault on crowded trains you dumbass. See, different ethnicities and races don't have any meaningful biological differences that put them more at risk of sexual assault by groping pervs like Trumpzi. But, and you are incredibly stupid so this may come as a shock; Women are biologically different from men and are by far the largest group (as in 50% of the population) subject to sexual assault by males. On trains this is usually some kind of groping that on a packed train car cannot be escaped until the next stop and it can be nigh impossible to identify the attacker. You also then have a situation where a woman (or trans-woman) is so traumatized by the assault that she cannot use the train. How is that fair?

You would rather deny a convenient form of safe public transportation to 50% of the population than "give them special accommodations". That makes you stupid. And if you keep it up I'm going to start wondering why you don't want to protect women from sexual assault by setting aside a space where it is infinitely less likely to happen.

You cannot win a debate so you resort to name calling and and questioning someone's motives. How typical. Go get fucked retard.

Your mentally challenged argument can be used for anything. Don't want to give each child an armed guard, by God, you must hate children! Now I realize you're probably going to say there's no costs involved, but actually, yes there is opportunity costs involved in terms of lost efficiency and resource allocation.

The truth is, societies employs this 'optional segregation ' happen to be the most sexist and mysgonist societies for a reason. the reason being It sets poor precedent for society overall.

Further, I think that this wish to extend women special accommodations but deny it to other groups demonstrates YOUR preconceived notions.

I already won the argument, stupid. Rather decisively. And the fact that you think I was suggesting you hate women speaks more to you than me. I was hinting that you're just another "safe spaces waaa!" dipshit. Maybe you need a safe space when you throw out apples to oranges comparisons and get called the idiot you are? Poor baby need a nap?

And the fact that you are so fucking stupid that you think "special accommodations for women" (women aren't generally a minority, BTW. One more indication you have the brains of a small pebble.) wouldn't include any female or trans-woman of any ethnic or racial background again shows what a stupid asshole you are. But that's fine, pretend you care about the plight of minorities while throwing out insulting language that denigrates the mentally disabled.

Seriously, go away. The shit stench you've vomited forth won't clear the air in this thread for a week.

[Vendetta]

Personally, I think a better solution would be more frequent and/or longer trains so that they're less overcrowded (which would be a good thing anyway and make this sort of behaviour harder to get away with) and more on-train staff so that if something like this happens there's people on-hand to deal with it. I don't know to what extent conductors are trained to respond if passengers get belligerent but it might also be a good idea to make sure they have some of the same training as licensed private security guards; it can be a long way to the next station if some groper -or just a drunk, for that matter- freaks out and starts throwing punches.

For a lot of the UK network it's at capacity, and running longer trains would actually reduce network capacity because of the number of stops at stations with short platforms. If only half the train has access to the platform then everyone has to get into the front carriages then getting people on and off takes about twice as long. That means trains would take longer platform stops, and because of the legal minimum clear track between trains that would mean fewer trains would be able to run, reducing the capacity of the network.

Obviously the operators would have conniptions if you wanted them to run more staff. They're trying to do away with platform staff as it is.

[ArmorPierce]

Because it's to prevent sexual assault on crowded trains you dumbass. See, different ethnicities and races don't have any meaningful biological differences that put them more at risk of sexual assault by groping pervs like Trumpzi. But, and you are incredibly stupid so this may come as a shock; Women are biologically different from men and are by far the largest group (as in 50% of the population) subject to sexual assault by males. On trains this is usually some kind of groping that on a packed train car cannot be escaped until the next stop and it can be nigh impossible to identify the attacker. You also then have a situation where a woman (or trans-woman) is so traumatized by the assault that she cannot use the train. How is that fair?

You would rather deny a convenient form of safe public transportation to 50% of the population than "give them special accommodations". That makes you stupid. And if you keep it up I'm going to start wondering why you don't want to protect women from sexual assault by setting aside a space where it is infinitely less likely to happen.

You cannot win a debate so you resort to name calling and and questioning someone's motives. How typical. Go get fucked retard.

Your mentally challenged argument can be used for anything. Don't want to give each child an armed guard, by God, you must hate children! Now I realize you're probably going to say there's no costs involved, but actually, yes there is opportunity costs involved in terms of lost efficiency and resource allocation.

The truth is, societies employs this 'optional segregation ' happen to be the most sexist and mysgonist societies for a reason. the reason being It sets poor precedent for society overall.

Further, I think that this wish to extend women special accommodations but deny it to other groups demonstrates YOUR preconceived notions.

I already won the argument, stupid. Rather decisively. And the fact that you think I was suggesting you hate women speaks more to you than me. I was hinting that you're just another "safe spaces waaa!" dipshit. Maybe you need a safe space when you throw out apples to oranges comparisons and get called the idiot you are? Poor baby need a nap?

And the fact that you are so fucking stupid that you think "special accommodations for women" (women aren't generally a minority, BTW. One more indication you have the brains of a small pebble.) wouldn't include any female or trans-woman of any ethnic or racial background again shows what a stupid asshole you are. But that's fine, pretend you care about the plight of minorities while throwing out insulting language that denigrates the mentally disabled.

Seriously, go away. The shit stench you've vomited forth won't clear the air in this thread for a week.

Given that I am a minority that grew up in crushing poverty,I obviously do care about the plight of minorities retard .

Assholes like you however choose to support the plight of women butt ignore minorities despite both blacks and Hispanics earning less on a dollar than women and subjected to greater violent crime.

It's easy for white men to be in favor of policies and practices rust favors their white wives, sisters, daughters and mothers... not so easy for them to consider racial minorities which you are adequately demonstrating.

And the fact that you think I was suggesting you hate women speaks more to you than me.

This is retarded, sorry.

I was hinting that you're just another "safe spaces waaa!" dipshit.

Nope, I'm actually in favor of 'safe places ' within constraints. As I mentioned already, I am a racial minority. I realize that your feeble mind is unable to process levels past 1 level deep, but that's your problem not mine.

And the fact that you are so fucking stupid that you think "special accommodations for women" (women aren't generally a minority, BTW. One more indication you have the brains of a small pebble.)

More bull shit from you. Where did I indicate that women are a minority? They actually represent the majority!

Regardless, even if you weren't blatantly lying or misconstruing regarding what I said, you are grasping at straws and semantics. Some can argue that women are a social minority.

wouldn't include any female or trans-woman of any ethnic or racial background again shows what a stupid asshole you are. But that's fine, pretend you care about the plight of minorities while throwing out insulting language that denigrates the mentally disabled.

Cute. I'm only calling you a retard, not anybody else.

Seriously, go away. The shit stench you've vomited forth won't clear the air in this thread for a week.

That smell is your tiny brain rotting away from atrophy. Please don't let that stop you from advancing fabrications and falsehoods.

Leave the adults proceed and engage in a conversation regarding social, operational, and economic implications while you rage about people not caring about women safety hate safe spaces or whatever garbage you are purporting. I realize that's too much complexity for you to manage.