AIBU - women are totally U to not want boys in the women's changing room

Surely this is a different issue? Usually it’s under 8 who can be in the opposite sex changing room. It’s unreasonable to expect them to manage alone and yes I would consider it dangerous to send my 5 year old into the men’s unaccompanied aside from the fact it would probably take him about two hours to change on his own. Should I then not go swimming with him to avoid subjecting someone to the ‘curious gaze’ of a five year old?

I can relate to quite a bit of what you are saying @slothface. I back packed around the world and learned to cope with a guys washing their tackle in sinks beside the ones in which I was cleaning my teeth. The first time this happened, whilst I was taken aback, the manner in which they did it (totally functional with no regard to me) meant I found it weird and surprising but not threatening. I am also OK with receiving care from health care professionals of either sex. However, I recognise that this is about me and my lived in experience and I don't have an expectation that others should experience these things in the same way as me or that if my life was different, that I wouldn't have different personal preferences.
Last year I was diagnosed with breast cancer and ended up having a mastectomy. Whilst in hospital I went through a period of feeling (and actually being) very vulnerable. I actually found these feelings the hardest bit of the whole cancer experience. It made me realise how fortunate I had been to have reached my mid forties and to have not experienced such feelings before.
During the time where I was most vulnerable, my need for dignity and privacy became really important. I was in a bay of 4 women but for a short period the loo in the bay was out of order. Nurses had to help me make my way to the mixed sex loos at the end of the ward. During this time I had to pass male patients. I am still surprised how upsetting this was for me and I can't quite work out why. I did not think I was at risk of harm, I did not fear sexualised behaviour, I just found it really undignified and at the time I really didn't mean it. I remain ever pragmatic about the need for the NHS to cut costs, and I am not jumping up and down about the above. I am, however, very pleased I had my same sex bay and only had to experience the 'walk of shame' for a couple of days.
I have returned to not being the person willing to use the cubicle that has the lock that doesn't work because I am not worried about people catching a flash of me should they try and come in when my leg or arse isn't holding it shut. I also remain sympathetic and supportive of those who would not be OK about this.
There is a lot of talk about threat of violence and sexualised behaviour in relation to mixed sex provision. When, where and how these risks can be mitigated is important to debate. However, I think it is also important to recognise that privacy and dignity (which are human rights) are also important and this can often be afforded through same sex provision.
I don't think the privacy and dignity of trans people should be compromised by them having to use same sex provision designed for people of the sex as the one that them being born of causes them distress. I also don't think same sex provision can remain same sex provision if you allow a person of a different sex into it.

Very small boys - small enough that regardless of sex they are unlikely to be able to manage alone - are a separate issue to trans though!

Banning dependent small children (say under 6) from the women's does effectively ban their mothers in many cases.

Many women could not get out and about if very small children could not accompany them. That's not a right of the male to be anywhere, but of females not to be excluded for having been left holding the baby, one way or another.

The mothers of 3 or 4 year olds can't be lumped in with TIMs!

Why would anyone have a problem with a small boy in women's changing room? or are we talking teenagers here?

Your talking about children yes? little boys under 8 who are just as entitled as you to be in the womens changing rooms or is this another trans thread?

slothface I have kids, and can remember the age at which they started to ask for bodily privacy. So no, I don't accept its cultural, or that more nudity or mixed spaces are safer for women.

@msbeaujangles, I think I would classify as one of those people. While I do think there are valid concerns around self ID in medicine, sport and prisons, in day-to-day life I would support a fully unisex society. Not because of pro trans reasons but because I believe we're ridiculously prudish and I (and I want to stress here that I know these are my views and mine alone and know they are at odds with a lot of people on here) cannot fathom why anyone has such a deep distaste or fear of being in an ordinary situation (swimming, gym changing rooms, toilets) with members of the opposite sex. I don't believe the human body is inherently sexual unless in a situation where you want it to be. I've lived in house-shares where I'm the only female and happily walked around in a towel or my underwear. I just don't get the problem. I don't feel any need to hide my body away from anyone (obviously I wouldn't parade down the street naked but in situations that require a state of undress as mentioned above). I can't help thinking that feeling uncomfortable in those situations is more down to your own hangups. And yes, I have experienced sexual violence, and it didn't change my opinion. But as I said these are my views and I accept other people feel differently, I have just never been able to understand the very British fear of naked bodies, particularly those of the opposite sex. That's why I don't feel particularly concerned about self ID, I think pervs will be pervs whatever the rules, and if we'd historically been a unisex society where women weren't hidden away, perhaps we'd see less instances of voyeuristic sex crimes anyway.

Ha! Obviously some people are just very angry that the Manfriday swimmers have got some mainstream press attention and that anyone with a shred of logic will see self-ID for the ludicrous old twaddle it is.
What load of handmaidy balls - 'oh I don't mind! Pervs can just wank away in front of me, there is absolutely no situation ever that will possibly be a concern, it's just fine...' ad nauseam

are being outright prudes and weirdos

Nah. We're terfs. Bigots. Transphobes. Choose your insult.

I think the debate is being framed in the wrong way. The major argument should be about where and when same sex provision is important (if at all).
Are the people who argue for people with male sexed bodies accessing provision for people with female sexed bodies of the view that the same sexed provision is wrong/unnecessary? If so, whilst I disagree, I think this argument has some merit and the debate is not a trans one but one about the pros and cons of same sex provision.
If they are arguing for same sex provision whereby some male bodied people, but not all, should access provision designated for female bodied people, it is difficult to credit their argument with any merit, primarily because the moment a person of one sex enters a provision designated for people of the other sex, it no longer remains a same sex provision.

(the men's being a seething pit of danger)

This is the bit they need to be called out on - why are TRAs so intent on calling women transphobes when it's men that are apparently so dangerous, so genuinely transphobic, that it's too dangerous for someone to go in there for a wee?

The longer it goes on the easier it is to see its just male rights activism dressed up as an equality movement.