Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Continuation thread re IOC/trans policy and related trans issues

955 replies

fidel1ne · 27/01/2016 12:26

Also a plug for the FB group Grin

www.facebook.com/groups/ATWIWS/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Cellardoor1 · 17/02/2016 19:48

Fascicle It didn't seem like a transgender issue to the staff because the man in question wasn't making any attempt to look like a woman. He claimed he "identified" as one and therefore was allowed get naked in front of women and girls.

Any man who wants to expose himself or commit acts of voyeurism just has to say he identifies as a woman to gain access to womens spaces. It's inevitable that some men will take advantage of this as shown in that article.

splendide · 17/02/2016 20:18

Have you seen the story elsewhere? The article linked doesn't say he identified as a woman.

ShortcutButton · 17/02/2016 20:35

And that is the problem fasc. Its not that we all are terrified of trans people because well...erhgh....and arghh. Its because this ridiculous notion of self identifying your gender and then segregation being done according to gender, instead of sex; leaves girls and women totally vulnerable and strips away protection from any man who wants access

Cellardoor1 · 17/02/2016 21:00

Splendide you are right, he didn't say he identified as a female, just that he had a right to be there under the new legislation. I originally read the article on a different site and didn't notice that part. I would assume that meant he was using self identification as a means to gain access to the womens locker room but I've seen the possibility raised that he was staging some form of protest against these rules.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that any man can gain access to womens spaces under this law.

ArcheryAnnie · 17/02/2016 21:54

fascicle is your issue with the GenderTrender site that its information is wrong, or that you don't like their politics?

If you think the information is wrong, perhaps you'd like to tell us which bits.

If you think the information is true, perhaps you could explain why it's in any way relevant who gave that information to you.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page