Looking for a gym with female-only changing rooms by sex: a journey

"It's like engaging with a toddler. Though not as funny or heartwarming."

And toddlers will grow up.

Yep. And that they would be happy with a middle aged AGP cock in their face instead.

Imagine a person saying how disgusting it is to see old women getting changed in a communal female changing room and thinking that was ever going to prove any point they were trying to make. It really does say a great deal about them and how much they hate women though.

So back to your question OP - how do you deal with organisations starting to adopt anti women/anti safeguarding policies locally?

’Emily’ has kindly obliged and provided a number of the raging guff arguments from the trans activist side and you can see how easily they accredited. Hopefully that gives you a bit of ammo to get in early and point out the serious issues that allowing men into women’s spaces will cause.

I don’t know which country you are in but if it is anywhere Europe I can’t imagine any of the older ladies standing for it - they tend to be formidable.

I hope you have some useful stuff.

This discussion about domestic violence is not relevant in supporting the need to exclude male people from female single sex provisions. It remains an illegitimate form of discrimination to exclude one sub group of a sex category from a sex segregated provision. People cannot be excluded from the correct publicly accessible single sex provision for them to use on the basis of any other protected characteristic as that would be an illegitimate form of discrimination.

It is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces and vice versa. They are all important.

oh well. Remember, we had an entire thread about this very same attempt of a false comparison last year.

Strange isn't it? I don't believe that it is a widely used argument because it shows the immediate weakness that the person using it has no fucking idea about how safeguarding or consent works. As was pointed out on that thread last year.

'Nor do we about men in the workplace or those dating but crickets regarding employment segregation or chaperones where the violence overwhelmingly happens. Why is that?Nor do we about men in the workplace or those dating but crickets regarding employment segregation or chaperones where the violence overwhelmingly happens. Why is that?'

Consent.

You have now pivoted into an area of discussion about situations where female people can give consent to be in a workplace alone with a male person if they feel safe with that person. Dating? Well, that generally takes place in public until a female person can make a risk assessment about that male person.

These situations have no relevance to the discussion about male people demanding access to female single sex publicly accessible provisions where female people do not consent to that male person's presence.

Oh. Look at that … Howse it goin’ eh.

Therefore your attempt at discrediting the prisoner stats is weak and unsubstantiated and requires an intense amount of disconnected thinking that a sub group of male people who have shown the same male criminal pattern behaviour in the prison statistics will not show that pattern in the ‘offending’ statistics if they could ever be collected.

You and others can continue to attempt to discredit the prisoner statistics with that distraction of trying to say offending rates might be miraculously lower despite the conviction and incarceration rates saying it is not. And people can point out that your point is not logical and you can describe no reason at all as to why the offending rate would be lower than the pattern of the prison figures indicate. Then get back onto pointing out the pattern in prisoner statistics which also is not solely a UK statistical pattern.

Where the hell are you working where workplace violence is rife? Maybe reconsider your career choices. You’ve just made the point though that no men belong in female spaces however they present. If some men feel unsafe in male spaces, take it up with men. Not women’s circus, not women’s monkeys.

BTW. You’re coming across as a bit AT now. Just a hint….

Sexual violence tends to happen, as you admitted yourself, in spaces where the perpetrator and victim are likely to find themselves isolated from others, that generally doesn't apply to workplaces. When it comes to dating that is a matter of personal freedom. I personally would never willingly put myself in a situation where I was alone with a man I don't know very well, other women make different choices. All of us however have to participate to some degree with the rest of society, we don't really have much choice in that. I think that when I go out and I have to sit on a toilet with my knickers around my ankles, or take my clothes of in a public changing room, I should be able to do so safe in the knowledge that a no man is going to be in there.
It really doesn't matter how rare trans women are, I couldn't give a toss. Men with six toes on each foot are rare too, they also don't get to use women's spaces. Even if there was definitive proof that men who truly wholeheartedly believe they are women were less predatory than other men (and there isn't), They should still stay out of women's spaces because women cannot mind read. Fully enclosed cubicles have their own issues which another poster knows much more about.

No. They commit sexual offences at a higher rate than men who don't identify as trans.

Quite a lot of the usage of female toilets happen outside the locked cubicle if that locked cubicle doesn’t have an hand drier in the cubicle, even if that cubicle lock works. And if a hand drier is in the cubicle, other users are going to be none too pleased by the time that woman takes drying herself off.

Plus, there is also a massive difference between a toilet that fits a pram in versus a toilet that doesn’t fit a pram in when a woman has a pram with her. Or a wheelchair if there is no accessible toilet operating.

Many female people know and understand this from personal experience.

Again, you have ignored the points being made.

The intensive mental health support is NOT part of the UK’s treatment plan for a male person who chooses to have extreme body modification. And the results were not showing that the group had ‘female’ pattern, the study actually just showed they had a lower range in the male pattern.

The first point about mental health support makes the study irrelevant in the UK.

You can keep posting what she said in that interview, but the conclusion in the study is not clear. In fact, because of the very small number of violent crime being committed, the results table shows ‘NA’ for the adjustment the did in analysis.

So, perhaps this researcher should be making disclaimers as to how she now has given a stronger conclusion in relation to violent crime than the team’s results has shown.

However, it then comes back to the first point that the intensive mental health support is not given to this group of male people in the UK unless they are paying privately for it.

I "campaign" for locked cubicles. Seems to work just fine in millions of restaurants, bars, cafes, airlines & shops globally.

"Might be" in terms of domestic violence? Are.

Whether or not is "over all" is missing the point that's being illustrated here by this example is behavioural differences between sub groups impacts offending. That's undeniable. And it's not just being gay that changes the results but age & economic status. And again, in any case we don't know the offending rates of trans women & if we did their statistically insignificant low numbers as a community make any conclusions about their offending impossible.

But we cannot know just by looking at or talking briefly to a man that he is of low risk, but we can tell pretty reliably that he is male, a member of the sex that commits the vast, vast majority of sex crimes.

Nor do we about men in the workplace or those dating but crickets regarding employment segregation or chaperones where the violence overwhelmingly happens. Why is that?

Is anyone else seeing any similarity by the TRA posters and people like Andrew Tate and other inhabitants of the manosphere. I mean AT believes women are inferior to men, and their needs, wants and opinions are not worth anything unless they are aligned with those of men. Both groups seek to control women.
Both groups believe they deserve access to women’s bodies (albeit in different ways), and get upset and abusive when they are denied.

Lord 😁. How many times do we see men desperately try to assert they're absolutely no threat by positively bombarding unconsenting women with post after post of dodgy stats, reams of made up, misinterpreted bollocks, and endless 'see! now you've got to cave' comments??

Jumping up and down yelling I'm no threat, I'm no threat, whilst attempting to force women to comply 🤣

Score!

And no, Emily, it's always been unlawful for you to try and get into women's spaces.

Stay out.

But a lot of males with a trans identity are not homosexual males. There seem to be an awful lot of “lesbians” in that cohort…. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves though. They are male and do not belong in female spaces. Tell men to #budge up, be kind and accept some men present differently.

I want to ask , when we know that allowing men access to spaces where women are likely to be isolated or in a state of undress, that it puts women at an increased risk of not only assault, but becoming victims of voyeurism, why do you prioritise the inclusion of trans women over the safety of actual women? Why not campaign for separate provisions to be made available for trans women, no matter the cost or inconvenience. I completely understand that men who present in a stereotypically feminine way might be wary of using men's spaces. But that doesn't mean they should just be allowed into women's spaces.

Wee @EmilyinEverton every time you add something I just wonder how you manage to mangle everything.

As you know - the Supreme Court confirmed they were stating the law as it always had been. Woman means biological woman. It did in 1970, 2000, 2010 and 2020.

For the minority of cross dressing men who may get a certificated sex status - the only thing they have in common is that they’re men. All ‘trans women’ are men.

Emily is a man. He’s only there for the young women.

Well no it was never about violence, or at least not just violence. You were the one who insisted that lesbians are more violent than gay men. Now you have provided some fairly weak evidence that lesbians MIGHT be more violent than gay men in certain circumstances (I would like to see the details of that study to see the ratio of lesbians to gay men). It still doesn't address the fact that lesbians still appear to be less violent and criminal overall. Why are you ignoring that? Yes I agree that men of certain demographics will commit violent and sexual crimes at lower rates and others commit them at higher rates. But we cannot know just by looking at or talking briefly to a man that he is of low risk, but we can tell pretty reliably that he is male, a member of the sex that commits the vast, vast majority of sex crimes. You say that transgender people are 'clearly distinct from normal male/female behaviour', but I've seen no evidence of this beyond the clothes they choose to wear.

So now we're getting into domestic violence between romantic partners specifically?

You asked for a direct comparison regarding violence & now that data is 'inconvenient' to your narrative you casually wave away violence to 'just something between romantic partners'?

Let's just be honest now, this was never about violence was it?

You've still ignored that fact that according to the evidence you provided yourself, lesbians are less likely OVERALL to commit violent (or any other) crime than either gay or straight men.

You quibbled the word "criminal" as being vague remember? So I generously provided you with the details of which you are attempting to divert from.

You still haven't addressed the male propensity to commit sex crimes,

Indeed I have by making the point that sub groups differ in offending patterns which makes using 'male' offending an over simplified inaccuracy.

"or the fact that most trans women are not homosexual so the crime rates of gay men are irrelevant."

The broader point you are missing is it's not in terms of potential variables that might conflate offending levels of males. Variations in group behaviours clearly exist that impact offending. Transgender people are clearly distinct from normal male/female behaviour so its entirely possible that their offending levels might vary from the norm because of this. In any case, we don't actually know their offending patterns nor if we did would they be statistically significant enough to draw meaningful conclusions about their offending patterns.

So now we're getting into domestic violence between romantic partners specifically? Well luckily that's something I don't have to worry about as I'm not a lesbian nor am I in a relationship. You've still ignored that fact that according to the evidence you provided yourself, lesbians are less likely OVERALL to commit violent (or any other) crime than either gay or straight men. You still haven't addressed the male propensity to commit sex crimes, or the fact that most trans women are not homosexual so the crime rates of gay men are irrelevant. Or even the fact that we cannot tell just by looking whether someone is gay/straight/bi, but we can tell with a very high degree of accuracy what sex someone is, so all males need to stay out of female spaces.