Topshop gender neutral changing rooms part 2

[BahHumbygge]

Part 1 here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3080957-To-alert-you-to-the-fact-that-Topshop-just-changed-its-policy-to-let-men-into-the-womens-changing-rooms

As some pp have mentioned, I'm quite dismayed at the erasure of women that comes as a result of reducing "woman" to a subjective and fluid "feeling"
So I have the worry for the safety of my dd in an environment previously considered private.
And concern for women in prisons, refuges, and hospitals.
The future of this worries me.
I wonder how far this delusional support will continue into medicine and politics and education.

I blame Gender as an ideology.
If it didn't exist, none of this would be possible.
It's become a twee synonym for sex and that's enabling the misogynists and self deluders.
I wish I were more intellectual and articulate, but I hope someone who is will come along and offer a better explanation

These are a list of the men who went to Target because the change in policy allowed them into the girls/women's toilets and changing rooms, once inside they attacked girls/women.

Open door policies in womans spaces encourage offenders to these spaces. Why can transactivists and Top shop not see that !

DrKrogersfavouritepatient Gender is only feelings in people's heads. It is a group delusions as to how female and males should behave and dress. It doesn't really exist unless we buy into it.

Plus the 'rules' of gender change over time and are different today all over the world.

Today's gender says dresses are for women only in the UK. Despite in the past children of both sexes wore dresses until they were 8 yo and no one was triggered.

A young boy was recently transed into what the parents felt reflected a girl clothes. Because he lived football and in America loving football is a girl thing as the real boys like American football (aka rugby). In England the same bot wokd of been supported as being very boyish because of his love of football.

As you can see rules vary a lot.
If eventually enough people decide that gender is a lot of rubbish, then it will no longer influence the children/adults who are gender non confirming and don't follow the current rules.

Without gender rules, a child can wear what they want, play with what they want with who they want and no one will bat an eye.

The real thing here is biological sex and sex segregated areas are still needed. Until women are not killed, attacked and raped by men daily.

Yesterday I saw the plans for a new community hall in my area. 3 toilet blocks. 1 men's (cubicle) 1 women's /disabled (3 cubicles) and I men's urinals. So men get their own space yet again.

I blame Gender as an ideology.
If it didn't exist, none of this would be possible.

You’re quite right. That, and the incessant and, quite frankly, ludicrous, goalpost shifting that transactivists engage in.

I can distinctly remember when I first heard that sex is determined by your brain, not your genitals. I never, for a single second, thought the concept would be taken up by TRAs across the board. It being completely nutty, and all. But it has been.

Which is why, certainly online, you can’t use the argument that spaces are divided by sex, not gender.

Because they have changed the meaning of the word sex.

You might get further with this argument, as it starts to play out in public though. Because most people (obviously), don’t give it houseroom.

Particularly when someone like Travis effectively demonstrates that whatever is going on in his brain, it hasn’t affected his massive sense of entitlement and need to dominate, common to a lot of men. Exactly the kind of man you don’t want in your personal space.

As people often point out on the relationships board, when he tells you what he’s like, listen.

Why can transactivists and Top shop not see that !

I can’t speak for top shop. I’m pretty certain it’s not run by feminists though, so I don’t blame them for not getting it.

But transactivists certainly get it. They’re relying on it.

babies
Yes, I see what you're saying. I suppose that's what I mean (but explained poorly), that sex is what matters and gender has done us no good. Even on some medical forms "gender" is asked rather than "sex" which I think comes from a prudishness rather than actually meaning "gender"
I'm waiting for the day some male gets in a frothy tantrum about being excluded from having a smear test

It seems to me that this problem has been solved by Top Shop senior management (men) and a few women don't like the solution.

Frankly I’m rather grateful to Travis and the top shop debacle. Because it’s highlighted the problem. As the thousands of people, men and women, who have taken to online media have demonstrated.

The fact that it is been picked up by almost every newspaper, is also a plus. People everywhere are seeing through the rhetoric.

Yes Datun I agree that TAs absolutely get it

I'm waiting for the day some male gets in a frothy tantrum about being excluded from having a smear test

This has already happened. :( I can't remember the details but when I do I will post a link.

"But transactivists certainly get it. They’re relying on it."

Why does transactivists want to encourage offenders into women's spaces? I thought it was a terrible unintentional side effect to what the transactivists wanted...do you think it is one of their aims ?

I'm waiting for the day some male gets in a frothy tantrum about being excluded from having a smear test

I think that has already happened. The sexual harassment experienced by women has also been described as “cis privilege”.

It’s such unmitigated bollocks.

I mean, this has been the Arcadia group's policy for at least a month before Travis went to Topshop, you and your daughters will probably have used a unisex changing room in Topshop or another store since the policy changed.

Do you dislike this policy, fine, that is your prerogative. Are you boycotting all stores with unisex changing rooms?

The Topshop policy has nothing to do with Travis though, they just went in to a shop and then complained about how they were treated, the internet responded by showing an old email regarding Arcadia's/Topshop's changing room policy. AFAIK, Topshop haven't responded yet at all.

There are many issues where, even though I don't agree, I can see your point. This just isn't one of them. If you get equally angry about everything, the important stuff gets lost.

loopsdefruit

So all our points are valid except the policy date change ?

Good. We are on the same page. So you understand that now we are aware of this policy, we have the right to not use this (Or any other shop) which allows men in the women's changing rooms.

Ps. Unisex is all men and women in the same space which is not the same as letting men into the women's space, whilst retaining a men only space too.

Babieseverywhere

Why does transactivists want to encourage offenders into women's spaces? I thought it was a terrible unintentional side effect to what the transactivists wanted...do you think it is one of their aims ?

Well that’s the question.

Their aim was to allow men with autogynephilia have legitimate and unhindered access to everything female.

But, the tactics employed suggest that these men like nothing more than bullying women, relentlessly and militantly.

I really don’t see how you can assert that your aim is to be treated as a legitimate woman, whilst at the same time threatening to rape women, dox them online, and hope their children die of cancer.

And then still expect women to a) believe they are women and b) not class them as violent men, who are determined, all costs, to infiltrate women’s spaces.

Ok, loop, if you don't see a problem that's great for you. We get that you think it's all very fair and reasonable. I'm sure there are many people who would agree with you. The majority of posters on this thread happen not to agree. I don't much care if you think we are wasting our energy.

The Topshop policy has nothing to do with Travis though,

He was refused entry on the grounds that it was a women’s changing room. Whatever Topshop are now saying, that’s not what was happening at the coalface, on the day.

So maybe his Twitter tantrum has revealed a unisex policy, that was apparently not being followed?

What has been exposed is his tremendous sense of entitlement and confidence that he will be listened to, over the voices of women in a state of undress.

And, women everywhere are now fully aware of exactly who will be exploiting this unisex policy.

At the very least the policy has been shown as inadequate. Because they were not lockable cubicles.

But it has also alerted retailers to the fact that women like female only changing rooms.

Because of people like Travis.

Unisex only really works on a courtesy system. A reliance that it won’t be deliberately exploited.

Travis has shown that there are suddenly very, very many men who can’t wait to push boundaries, because the trans ideology has made it impossible for women (and retailers) to object.

Their aim was to allow men with autogynephilia have legitimate and unhindered access to everything female.

women being uncomfortable, showing anger and rejection of sexual attention or having their boundaries invaded is a turn on for many men who sex pester. 'You're beautiful when you're angry darling!' Much sex pestering is about getting past women's boundaries. Many, many actions by abusive men involve breaking women's boundaries and resisting their rights to have any.

See the anger and threats to rape and punch and murder when a woman they have never met says, or worse tells other people, however politely, 'I don't agree you should do this or have this right'. Narcissistic rage. The woman is out of line, and it's now justifiable to punish her and obliterate her if necessary. Text book domestic violence. Differing stands. 'I am entitled to this privilege and this treatment. You are inferior to me and are not, you are not entitled to consideration'.

This is about power, this is about rage towards women for excluding and withholding by fact of biology they cannot be made to hand over, and this is linked to the massive increase nationally in domestic violence. Committed by entitled, angry men.

If politicians would stop wittering and hiding and actually bother to do join up the dots and do some social research like actual grown ups then we might have better answers to this mess.

*differing standards

Loopsdefruit

The closest analogy I can think of regarding risks of shady behaviour is to compare it to my house.

When I leave my house, I lock my door. I know there is still the risk that a determined/ opportunist burglar could still break in and rob me, but I also hope that the risk of them being seen acting in a suspicious manner would either put them off trying, or that their presence may be challenged by someone who knows they shouldnt be there. I do not leave my house unlocked and then announce it to everyone. The vast majority of people wouldnt care, but Im pretty confident that those with ill intentions would take note and see it as easy pickings.

As for Topshop/Travis, yes the policy was already in place, although I am not 100% sure what Topshops motive was in making such an open policy. My first thoughts had been that perhaps Topshop wanted to include all members of the trans community at all stages of transition and all identities. When even the trans community cant decide at exactly what stage a man should be accepted as identifying as a woman, perhaps Topshop also struggled and went for the broadest term possible for fear of otherwise excluding someone? I doubt very much Topshops intention was to create discomfort for women nor create a voyeurs paradise. Im not even sure Topshop envisaged someone like Travis sauntering up looking 100% male ( with heavy stubble too) and demanding to use the 'female' changing rooms. This smacks of Travis purposely goading and pushing a loophole in a rule that had one intention, for his own gains. Travis's intentions seem highly questionable considering how important blending in is to 99% of trans.

I note that you havent read all the posts, so perhaps you missed the one discussing how teenage lads are already openly discussing their plans to go to the 'female' changing rooms in topshop ( and their intention is not to buy themselves a dress....) this is obviously very distressing to any teenage girl to hear and again doubt that this was Topshop's intention. Whatever Topshops true intentions are, it has been very poorly planned and executed.

This smacks of Travis purposely goading and pushing a loophole in a rule that had one intention, for his own gains.

This is a large part of the problem. Pushing women's boundaries is considered activism.

This is a large part of the problem. Pushing women's boundaries is considered activism.

It’s especially very gaslighty when those men claim that women’s boundaries should also apply to them, to keep out ‘other’ men.

Because some men are more women than others.

Women, meanwhile are reduced to ‘dedicated ovulators’ ( yes, I have seen that in a midwifery group. Makes a change from menstruators).

A few days ago, the Topshop matter was discussed on Loose Women. One of the panellists said that the man at the centre of it sometimes wore a dress and called themselves trans feminine and that therefore the opposite must be trans masculine. Seriously, a woman who sometimes wears trousers is a trans masculine? What utter tripe. Trans-activists are doing a good job at tying up politicians and the media with their fluid double-speak.

The panellists also said how brave they were even raising the topic...

Without gender rules, a child can wear what they want, play with what they want with who they want and no one will bat an eye.

The real thing here is biological sex and sex segregated areas are still needed. Until women are not killed, attacked and raped by men daily.

Exactly, very well said.

You know, I think TAs do get this, and they simply do not care about women at all. Noone can be unaware that men (as a class) are a danger to women (as a class). Anyone who supports this ridiculous trans-ideology simply does not care that ending sex segregation (and thats whats happening) is a huge problem for women.

Frankly I’m rather grateful to Travis and the top shop debacle. Because it’s highlighted the problem. As the thousands of people, men and women, who have taken to online media have demonstrated.

Yes, indeed. Its showing more and more people who were previously unaware of this fight, whats actually going on. It was the same when maria was attacked by 3 men. Obviously it would be better if she had not been attacked, but the attack brought the behaviour of TAs to more peoples attention as it was reported everywhere.

Each instance like Marias attack, Helen Steele being attacked, Travis throwing a tantrum, makes more and more people aware and once people are aware and think just a little about whats being demanded..more people become gender critical and say 'no'. And once enough people wake up and realise its all bollocks. Thats when it will all end and TAs can crawl back under their MRA rock to find another way to attack the rights of women. I just hope enough people wake up before this law change, as it will be harder once that has passed, to sort out this mess.