Transitioning man in the womens open changing room and communal showers at local swimming pool

He was incredibly load on the phone to friends/family about the surgery that he had had on his urethra so I can only guess he was having transitional ‘bottom’ surgery which as a ‘woman’ was considered gynological.

For the man and the hospital!. Alas not the women!

Funny that isn't it!

I bet they, conveniently, wouldn't be able to find a bed for a transman on the men's ward.

Therein lies the rub. The hospital has a patient who presents as a woman. The women's medical and surgical wards are full but there is an empty bed on gyny. Problem solved.

Why on earth would a male be placed as an inpatient (or outpatient) of a gynaecology ward?

I had an experience on the Women’s Gynaecology ward of a hospital where a man, who I can only assume identified as a woman (as he looked every bit like a man from his hulking huge man frame to his facial hair and deep voice - he did also have long fake painted nails and long hair dyed purple) was admitted to the room that I and two other woman were in.

He was clearly exercising his right to ‘be’ a woman and be on a womens ward in a room full of women. I had to question to myself why his rights had to overpower the rights of women who where in that room, when there was a poster out in the hallway which clearly stated that rooms were ‘SINGLE SEX’ and a patient would never be put in a position where they would be asked to share a room with a patient of the opposite sex.

I did not say a single thing against this person to them, the staff (who all came and swooned over said patient!) or to my family. I had asked earlier in the day before this person been admitted to the room to be discharged that day (I had been in hospital for a week and had been cleared the previous day by the doctors to be discharged).

When there was a change of staff they then made the assumption that I was asking to be discharged because of the man in the room, and I was treated horrendously, they kept on coming in and opening the curtains around my bed which I had chosen to close for my own privacy without asking me first, they tried to force me to stay and refused to get the meds that I needed to take once I had left the hospital. I ended up discharging myself and walking out.

It angers me to this day this man was able to ‘choose’ to be a woman and ‘choose’ to be in a women’s only space, however I couldn't choose’ to exercise my right to not share that space with him without being treated terribly by the staff.

"Hi receptionist. The women's changing being mixed sex, I've been excluded and need somewhere to change. Please could you direct me to your single sex provision for including female people who cannot use mixed sex facilities?"

Obviously completely inappropriate to require disclosure about why you may need single sex facilities, but you can point out the Equality Act does cover people of faith, culture, disability, belief etc, and inclusive means all of them. If they choose to make the women's facilities exclusionary to females by making them inclusive of males, then obviously there will be somewhere for those bounced out female clients to go? And why isn't all this on signage rather than embarrass and distress everyone by forcing them to deal with an issue of discrimination reactively rather than proactively?

Or a women's changing room

Oh but as customar I can assume that. And I will. And I'll bloody shout at any man i see in a women's toilets.

2 or 3 were what happened in WiSpa. At reception, the staff said they couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything about what turned out to be a male sex offender in the women's section. Seemingly the offender placed himself (in a state of 'semi-excitement' if the complain is correct) very near a young girl.

To boot, some horrible man started calling the complainant 'a dick'. I suspect he was delighted he could spew his invective at women under the cover of supporting this ideology. Actually, this ideology seems (to me) to be all about men spewing at women (and children).

The problem is using silhouettes instead of words. There are two sets of facilities: one for people in skirts or dresses and one for people in trousers.

Ain't that the truth. I'm sure the women were shocked for no reason whatsoever. How could an adult women be expected to correctly sex a human being? It's not like many of us actually grow humans, or raise them. I'm surprised that many women had successfully found their way into the women's. Rather than randomly following men (who they had mistaken for women) into their changing area.

Of course they are supplying separate sex changing rooms. It's obvious as there are no cubicles.

You can't assume that - it will depend on the pools policy. It might be easier, but again not necessarily, if they are marked male and female

And if there are two changing rooms one marked men's and one marked women's you would assume the single sex exemption is in place. Otherwise they would have unisex on the door.

In the end, unless there’s someone super-woke in charge, it’s probably going to come down to who makes most fuss. These men are very inclined to make a fuss. Hopefully you and the other women can make it clear that you are quite capable of making more.

Sadly, I have to point out that that is not the case

Organsiations have a right, if they decide to, to provide single sex spaces where appropriate. They are under no obligation to do so

I was about to post similar.

MMAMPWGHAP I think really loud screaming would be very cathartic in that situation. I am going to do the same if it ever happens to me.

Thanks for this post OP. I attend a similar early morning swim session and have pondered what I would do in similar circumstances.
My plan now is:

1. Scream loudly.
2. Announce to the whole pool that there’s a man in the women’s changing room.
3. Go dripping wet to reception and encourage as many women as possible to follow me. The wetter the better.

Did he tell you he was transitioning or did he just put a woman's costume on? Seems to me you have no evidence that he was anything other than a voyeur, whatever he claims he is.

There is a family changing room that will not be used for early morning swims as no children are allowed. He can either use the male changing room or the family changing room. His only reason for being in a female changing room is to cause distress and you need to point that out to the management. If this is a commercial company point out that they may lose 8 -10 regular swimmers by pandering to one male.

As a disabled woman, please don’t ask the centre to suggest the room for mobility impaired. These facilities were hard won and if the room is re designated in the morning, it will likely be later in the day as well. The ladies, who’ve undergone surgery should use that room. Cancer is covered under the EA2010 as a disability.

I hope you manage to get the centre to see sense.

No-one can go from man to woman or vice versa.

Humans cannot change sex. Humans are mammals and mammals cannot change sex.

The most humans can do is change some aspects of their body's appearance. They remain the sex they were conceived and born.

IMO until either sex has fully gone from man to woman and vice versa it should be law that they stick to charging rooms/toilets of the gender they were born with.
No one with a penis should be allowed to enter facilities that are for women only unless they are a young child with their mother/carer.

Voyeurism is when someone gets sexual pleasure from watching, photographing or recording others doing something that's usually private, for example when they're naked or having sex.

Voyeurism is an offence if it is done without the person's permission. The offence includes photographing or filming others for someone else's sexual pleasure.

Hm. So you have to prove he was doing it to get sexual pleasure from it? This is not victim friendly. The impact on the victim is the same whether he’s doing it for sexual pleasure or as a means of control or asserting his power/dominance in the situation, or just using the women for his own validation.

The net result is that a male (stranger) has knowingly put himself in a position where he could look at/see women who were naked when they did not consent to it. That should be the legal test for voyeurism, not the man’s intention.

Seems to me to be an example of the way the law is written from not from the POV of the (female) victims of a crime but from that of the (male) perpetrators. Something it would be worth addressing, I think.