Shameful, incoherent, poorly referenced, completely biased piece of 'journalism' from the Guardian

And again, what kind of male even wants to get their cock out in a place where they know that women who see it may well be very uncomfortable and distressed?

I actually think this is the crux of it. I think some states or countries etc have rightly got inclusive laws, and they are actually used very sensitively by the people they extend to, and are not abused.

So for people who dislike the inclusive laws and can't find a naturally occurring scenario suitable enough to raise tensions and publicity, the temptation is to act in bad faith to provoke such a scenario. Eg, Hamstead Heath swimming ponds, sending men into women's changing rooms in US states favourable to trans rights.

So suggestions you would think it ok that, say a group frequented by members of the black community, many of whom have had experiences of assault and intimidation by white members of the KKK - let’s say it was a space where they can support each other through the violence and intimidation they have experienced, should happily accept a white person attending because it would be wrong to generalise? Would no one have the right to say “actually, there are other groups you can join and your presence is unsettling to people who cannot be sure of your motivation for attendance.”

Would that be wrong? Would the white person be fine to say “I’m not racist, I want to join your group you should get over your fears?” Or would that seem, at best, insensitive?

Why do you think some thing are separated by sex?

Do you think everything should be mixed sex?

What do you think will be the final outcome of making everything mixed sex?

Who do you think will benefit when everything becomes mixed sex?

I always remember my brother taking a mixed group of people including someone from Nigeria into a Glasgow pub in the 70s and the barman saying that one of the group couldn't go in. It wasn't the guy from Nigeria but the diminutive blonde woman from France.

As we have seen many posts from women calling this racist trope out, please stop asserting that segregation by race is in any way applicable to segregation by sex.

Maybe you have not read the posts from women on this forum who call this racism out.

Stop pretending that we did.

I don't deny that there were racist people sticking up signs saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' but that is very different from official policy. And such signage has been illegal here since at least the 1970s.

And your dragging up of other countries' past policies just suggests that we should do away with all spaces segregated by sex - there should be completely mixed prisons, mixed sports, etc.

@suggestionsplease1

Do you understand that over 98% of sexual crime is carried out by males?

Should we have sex segregation or not?

We also don’t safeguard by race or sexual orientation.

The dismissal of the risk of males to commit sex crimes is very enlightening.

Regarding the intention of a male in a female single sex space. There is a much higher potential that any male being in a female single sex space is likely to be of harm to the females there. Therefore it is much more likely that their ‘intention’ is going to result in some form of harm.

To deny otherwise is dangerous to women and girls.

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

And again, what kind of male even wants to get their cock out in a place where they know that women who see it may well be very uncomfortable and distressed?

Maybe EdgeOfACoin we need to simply ask their intention?

Oh. Wait. Wouldn’t that be considered an aggressive and phobic thing to do? So… scrap that.

Maybe all those uncomfortable could leave quietly?

Oh. Wait! That will be considered a micro aggression. And just as hateful. So … scrap that.

No, no. We have to assume that their intention is pure. That they are simply women too. Because the act of trying to identify their intention is hateful.

And let’s not forget that any female who is retraumatised by that action is responsible for their reactions. And they really, really should do something about that.

Any female with religious restrictions aren’t likely to be there because they have already read the policy and know they can’t enjoy the spa being easy in the knowledge it is female. (And they cannot start their own female only spa, because that would be illegal!)

However, the males simply cannot be expected to be excluded from the naked female section. They might feel excluded. And if you try to ascertain their intention, that is going to be a transphobic act for sure.

The effect that a scenario has on a person is always variable though isn't it?

The feeling of threat is not always proportionate to the actual threat, and the burden shouldn't always be on the ones that others feel threatened by to change their behaviour to accommodate the feeling of threat experienced by others.

For eg, if a person of X ethnicity felt threatened by the presence of someone of XX ethnicity, and justified their feelings of threat by saying 'O but I heard about someone being assaulted by someone of XX ethnicity recently' I don't believe that anyone of XX ethnicity should have to change their law abiding behaviour to accommodate the sensation of threat that X ethnicity has just because they have incorrectly generalised from something they've heard and feel uncomfortable around them.

You could swap that for different sexualities as well of course.

Good point above. Many flashers, even those we sometimes came across in the 1960s as small children in parks, think everyone will be delighted to see them. My daughter and her school friend once came across one who was totally naked which is different from most of them exposing himself to girls from their school not far from school. I think the police caught him in the end.

It is common sense to most people why we keep men away from areas where girls change (and women for that matter) as there have always been and always will be a small minority of men up to no good (and I write that as someone who as a child and in my own family has never had a problem with nudity at home and we used to swim naked in isolated rivers etc but that is very different).

Appalling too is the amount of praise Sam Levin was getting on social media for his 'investigative journalism' hmm. If this is what young people are being fooled into believing is quality, high standard news reporting and analysis then it really is quite frightening.

For a long time, too much 'journalism' has involved repeating quotes from Twitter. No analysis or commentary. Just a trawl through Twitter.

It would just be so, so helpful if someone could explain how we are supposed to tell the difference between a naked be-penised person with a male gender identity and a naked be-penised person with a female gender identity.

Then if I ever found myself in such a situation, feeling discomfort, I could know whether (a) I am a terrible transphobe who needs to check my privilege and educate myself, or (b) justifiably uncomfortable and in a vulnerable situation from which I should remove myself.

I'm sure a poster here could explain how I am supposed to tell the difference. I look forward to the explanation.

That this made it through every single sub, editor, or media lawyer who might have cast their eye over it, in a renowned international media organisation - is appalling.

Appalling too is the amount of praise Sam Levin was getting on social media for his 'investigative journalism' . If this is what young people are being fooled into believing is quality, high standard news reporting and analysis then it really is quite frightening.

“exposing with deliberate intent to distress others” is not a condition for indecent exposure; rather, it’s the effect the exposure has on the victim.

Many flashers think girls and women will be delighted to view their manhood.

And nothing more to see here.

If a naked male enters a naked female section of the spa legally, and finds it arousing, they are there legally. So nothing to see. It is not ‘intentional’, it is just natural and should be embraced shouldn’t it?

That a naked male getting into a spa or hot tub has to have their penis (now semi erect) and testicles at eye level of a naked 9 year old is just a male getting into a spa. It is not that male’s intention to be exposing themselves, it is just the mechanics of getting into a hot tub. Where a nine year old just happens to be present.

And ffs that nine year old girl needs to stop looking at a male’s genitals! They need to be taught manners.

Because it is all just a human body. If that girl is uncomfortable, by god she needs to know that it is culturally acceptable in some countries. Get used to it girl. You will never know what the intention of that penis is, so just sort out your own issues because they do not matter to anyone else.

Because in this spa, it is perfectly legal. No one should have the expectation of only being naked with other females in the female section.

That’s equality, innit?

If on the other hand it can be established that someone was acting inappropriately in that spa, beyond what state laws permit, by exposing with deliberate intent to distress others, that is very serious too and requires appropriate action to prosecute, and safeguarding steps within the spa.

That is simply a red herring, the law allows for the individual to be there, if distress is caused to others that is because of their transphobia (or something) not as a result of the intent behind the individual.

I am angry that it happened, I am angrier that those who fucking wanted this are acting like toddlers with "it wasn't me" whilst having a face smeared with chocolate cake. They know it is wrong, they know that this will make the public sit up and think "wtf" so distraction and smear campaigns are all they have, whilst of course playing the innocent little victims.

If on the other hand it can be established that someone was acting inappropriately in that spa, beyond what state laws permit, by exposing with deliberate intent to distress others, that is very serious too and requires appropriate action to prosecute, and safeguarding steps within the spa.

How on earth would you prove intent?

It's difficult enough to take a rape case to court.

How would this 'police investigation' actually go?

Police: Good evening Sir, we have reports that you were in a female only space at a spa and your penis was exposed. If this is true then this is indecent exposure and is a serious criminal offence. What say you?

Penis person: Yes it's true, I was in the female only section with no clothes on. I got into the hot tub, willy out and everything. But its fine though because I identify as a woman.

Police: Oh gosh, huge apologies, well this is awkward, lol! Gah, these right wing nutters are always causing trouble aren't they? So sorry for wasting your time Sir...Sorry, I mean Ma'am!

Nothing to see here.

If a naked male enters a female naked section of a spa because they are legally allowed to be there, it all ok. Nothing to worry about. Any female has a problem, well they are the ones who have a problem.

If they are triggered, they need to deal with their own issues. That it would trigger the male to be excluded is so much more important and they should NOT be expected to get over it.

Nice to see how much females are centred.

Equality innit?

And women have to simply accept unsettling behaviour all the time because it’s not actually illegal.

So say a man walks down my street everyday and lingers by my gate. Looks in my window. I don’t want to challenge him because he’s much bigger than me and he unsettles me.

Of course it may be his route to work. He may like the flowers in my garden and they cheer him up an his way to a job that makes him miserable. He may be looking at my garden and it just seems like he’s looking in my window.

Would the police investigate? We have anti stalking legislation don’t we? But is he doing anything wrong? Other than making me feel vulnerable and unsafe?

This is the kind of thing that happens all the time. You can read reports of much worse threatening and intimidating behaviour (eg indecent exposure) that is not taken seriously.

So again, why would the police investigate a naked transwoman in a spa in a city that accepts TWAW?

suggestionsplease1

You are deliberately avoiding postulating about the 3rd possibility. That it happened, there was no and is no investigation because it was within the law, it doesn’t matter if the male was exposing their penis deliberately to cause distress, because it did cause distress because it was a penis, attached to a naked male in a space that women believed to be exclusively for the female sex, with naked children present.

Or as it’s known, the truth .

Even if you don’t personally accept this to be the truth, (even though it is) are you even capable of acknowledging that this is a possibility?