"Wrong bathroom" sign in university toilet

Having said that the whole cottaging thing especially in public bogs is an issue because boys walking in on sexual activity / etc is just not good is it.

There was a really interesting article recently in defence of it which simultaneously said "if a boy walks in everyone stops" and "I had my first sexual experience with a man in a public toilet when I was a boy" so....

Different issue to the thread

BUT

The gents is a men's space with it's own rules, same as the ladies.

No idea why your so hung up on the law terrence

Because it's important. Especially when people are wilfully getting it wrong.

The strongest and most obvious theme that works against self ID are facts. Scientific and legal. You're working against that in every one of your posts, and claim that your feelings and beliefs are more valid. That's exactly what this board has been arguing heavily against since this whole TRA thing has kicked off.

Other posters would see that, if they weren't so keen to join in on a pile on and actually read what posters were saying instead of trying to guess their view point and giving out a metaphorical kicking for it, (I'm looking at you Luca)

"I do think women should start going into mens bogs, to highlight the issue to cis-men.
Don't go on your own, tho. Men's toilets are often not safe, even for men or boys."

This is interesting.

I've used the gents a bit in pubs when younger, for various reasons, and the men do NOT like it. Of course they don't. They don't want girls / women wandering in while they are standing there nob in hand.

Also there is the issue that some men / some toilets are popular for cottaging. I think this is the basis of all teh weird memes with a "glamorous" TIM in the gents saying "do you REALLY want me in there with your husband?" which is bizarre to women as women do NOT see the ladies as a place for potential sexual encounters. Gay men have a rich history of sexual encounters in the gents, and men who aren't gay on the whole have learnt ways around this.

Where there are popular spots, gay men really do not want women getting into their spaces, do they.

This is a point about the swimming ponds at hampstead - the men's one isn't just a men only zone, it's well known as a spot for gay men to be, which must be nice, I imagine they're pretty rare. Women joining the mix is just going to ruin it.

Hopefully this sort of idea will start to wake up the gay male community if they realise their spaces are at risk.

The thing is though, women have no desire really to impede on men's spaces in the same way that so many men do women's, we're also not nearly so entitled, and of course generally we present to physcial threat. So, still very different.

Note I'm not a gay man (although I could identify as one I suppose!) but certainly in my neck of the woods in north london there are some places which the straight men avoid as it isn't the place for them .

"If there is an offence then the police can deal with it" expressly means you're not interested in stopping the offending.

No it doesn't.

So, once again, show me where I said "I don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards"

If the words are too big or tricky, you could place your finger underneath each individual word as you sound it out in your head. That might help? Or read the words out loud. If that still doesn't work, perhaps get someone to help you. I've only made a dozen or so posts on this thread. It should be really easy to find.

I've read through Terrence's posts and while they are a bit irritating I can't see that they've said anything "wrong".

The post cited above was in reponse to a poster who claimed that it was illegal for a man to be voyeuristic in the ladies, but not illegal for a woman to do that. It's just not true.

A woman might find it more easy to get away with, but that doesn't mean that the law is sex specific. It isn't.

I do think women should start going into mens bogs, to highlight the issue to cis-men.
Don't go on your own, tho. Men's toilets are often not safe, even for men or boys.

I on the other hand will ensure 100% that a man in the ladies feels as welcome as a fart in a lift. I've had enough.

That's easy to say, but not easy to do since you'll be aware that the person possibly holds aggressive views towards a woman who challenges him, possibly is a straightforward pervert and definitely has greater physical strength.

You said what you said, we can all see what it means. Even you.

"If there is an offence then the police can deal with it" expressly means you're not interested in stopping the offending.

Do you agree that it's necessary?

Yes in very specific circumstances.

And if so, do you agree that the current law is, or can easily be, exploited?
What law?

If there's a criminal offence (exposure/voyeurism etc) then the police can deal with it regardless of it being committed by a woman/man/trans individual.

This implies that an offence needs to be committed, and therefore a woman/girl is the victim of exposure/voyeurism and then the police will act.
Which does sound rather like ‘I don’t care if women and girls are assaulted and the police can deal with it afterwards’

OK TerranceandPhilip

Instead of getting involved in, what might be a pointless argument, because you largely agree with what we are saying, what is your opinion of sex segregation?

Do you agree that it's necessary?

And if so, do you agree that the current law is, or can easily be, exploited?

Where have I said "I don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards?"

Forgive me Luca, but I'd own what I say, rather than your interpretation of it

SnibbleAgain

People are only just waking up to what this all means.

I'm sure many people believe that there is a law backing up sex segregation in toilets.

Largely because they have never had to give it any thought.

They know full well that dads come in with their daughters, say. But it's never been a threat.

There's always an acknowledgement that this is against custom, but acceptable on this occasion.

In other words, women have some recourse.

To find out that actually no, you don't really have any recourse, because there is no law on which you can rely, is bad enough.

But it's a whole lot worse when you realise that this lack of law is now going to ride roughshod over customs and the protocols that allow women to challenge men.

It's like finding out there is no actual law that says you can't drive a herd of pigs through my back garden, and the next thing I know 15 herds of pigs have trampled over my dahlias.

That is what you said, try and own it.

So no attempt at prevention then? You don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards?

Ah the Cathy Newman school of debate. Bravo.

At no point have I suggested a free for all in the ladies (in fact I think it's a terrible idea) all I have done is correct two posters, one of whom in particular seems to really struggle with the concept of law.

But to point out when someone is clearly wrong, (factually wrong not just "I don't agree with you" wrong) is apparently misogynistic.

speaking as an older woman, who cannot wait long to go, I just go into the men's, if there is a massive queue for the ladies. Obviously I don't breathe through my nose when I am in there...and I just hover over the loo...have done this for years.

if anyone challenges me I plan to say that I identify as a man...can t they tell from my jeans and flat shoes?

The idea that it is illegal for men to commit voyeristic crime in the ladies ie filming under the door, but not for women to do this, is cobblers.

The fact is that the vast vast vast majority of voyeurs of this type are men. So self ID exposes women massively more to this type of crime.

But to say it's not illegal for women to do this is plain wrong.

But Garden is talking rubbish.

Are we supposed to support those on "our" side even if they are talking rubbish and dismiss those we imagine are not on "our" side even if the evidence for them being not on "our" side is a bit sparse?

"I am enjoying my Sunday and certainly wont be justifying my opinions with 'facts and evidence' to anyone.

To be quite frank I dont care whether what I say is based on 'truth' or not. Its how I feel on the matter based on my lived experience. "

??? I mean come on.

If there's a criminal offence (exposure/voyeurism etc) then the police can deal with it regardless of it being committed by a woman/man/trans individual. If someone was filming over or under a cubicle door then that person could be arrested regardless of how they identify

So no attempt at prevention then? You don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards?

Garden you're guessing and making things up.

It is not illegal (in the UK) for one adult to say to another adult, do you want to watch me shower.

If there is an employment relationship, then many companies would take a dim view I'm sure, that is different to it being "against the law" though.

Do you really think it's illegal for one adult to ask another adult if they want to watch them shower?

There are laws around harassment, fearing for life, threats etc which could I suppose be pressed into use but that would need a bit more than "do you want to watch me shower".

How have you got through life thinking there are laws against people talking to each other which is what it boils down to?

It's not helpful to post things that are untrue on threads like this - that it's illegal to go into a wrong sex toilet, that it's illegal to ask someone if they want to watch you shower.

Also note that Weinstein has been accused of rape by multiple women and AFAIK has not been arrested.

To be quite frank I dont care whether what I say is based on 'truth' or not. Its how I feel on the matter based on my lived experience

The irony metre is about to explode....

You've probably more in common with trans females than anyone else on this thread.

I am enjoying my Sunday and certainly wont be justifying my opinions with 'facts and evidence' to anyone

Yeah fuck it. Claim stuff is illegal despite these laws not existing any where but in your head. Who needs facts or evidence when it's about the "feelz." Now where have I heard that before?

Except a male entering a women's toilet is an offence grin

No it's not.

Rather than just guessing, why don't you use Google. There's a world of information at your finger tips. It might be prudent to double check before coming across as a bit of a tit on the internet

Watching people thoroughly enjoy what they fondly imagine is a gotcha moment at women's expense, is just more of the same boundary violations that misogynists love dreaming up.

It makes for rather unpleasant reading.

And, ironically just ends up proving women's point, over and over.