That this transgender person..

[ClassSize2022]

Should not have been in the ladies changing room? Especially if naked from the waist down.

I can imagine being very frightened in this situation as a biological woman having to share a changing room with a man.

NHS transgender worker wins payout after boss asked about underwear

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e15f7c2-0779-11ed-a986-fc91b4ad48f0?shareToken=b22ada0c3a8e04d703e4eb229fb47802

transgender worker wins payout after boss asked about underwear www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e15f7c2-0779-11ed-a986-fc91b4ad48f0?shareToken=b22ada0c3a8e04d703e4eb229fb47802 Times article

I have answered this above.

Not in every circumstance, no. And, of course, everyone is entitled to object to something they feel strongly about. Again, some objections can veer into transphobic territory.

So in some circumstances, it is and in others, it is not? I don't understand the difference. Can you explain, please?

For example (and this is very simplistic of course), the objection to sharing a space with a transgender woman because of a belief that a transgender woman is more likely to enjoy indecently and inappropriately exposing themselves (eg, a 'flasher').

So, if I object to sharing any such public space with any individual with a penis under any circumstances does that make me transphobic?

It most definitely unfortunate and sometimes disastrous when management/authorities get it 'wrong' (though 'wrong' is often subjective). In that instance, for me personally, I suppose I would weigh up the pros and cons of my choice to remain in that environment (eg, job loss, mental health etc). I don't view it as my responsibility to uphold another person's/woman's boundaries. I support their right to have that personal boundary, of course.

For example (and this is very simplistic of course), the objection to sharing a space with a transgender woman because of a belief that a transgender woman is more likely to enjoy indecently and inappropriately exposing themselves (eg, a 'flasher').

I think the issue referred to above is that we cannot tell the difference between individuals with penises. Imagine a women's changeroom situation and there is a man with his penis exposed. How do we tell the difference between a flasher and a non-flasher?

Hold on, @Didimum

Your original 'transphobic hole' comment was in response to the OP, which was expressing concern for the women who had potentially been exposed to a naked penis in a women's changing room. Did you read the article and tribunal papers before making your comment? It seems like you were just ready to jump in and slur any discussion of this case as 'transphobic'.

So many posters here have looked very closely at the source material to try and build a picture of what happened in this case, and there have been some detailed discussions of the law as interpreted in this case. All very illuminating. Have you read it all?

Any person who exposes their penis in a women's communal changing room is doing it for kicks.

Decent people understand that females deserve the privacy and dignity to not have a penis exposed to them against their will. The rest...

So if women don't want a man in the toilets to get their penis out in the ladies changing rooms, then they need to basically suck it up or leave their jobs.

And you call us 'transphobic holes' for calling a man who is flashing women in the women's changing rooms a flasher. Even before they were called a flasher.

It is incredulous how much people like you must hate women.

No. We have rights now and one of those is to not have to see colleagues' penises at work. It's the very reason that we have seperate toilets and changing rooms in the first place.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

So in some circumstances, it is and in others, it is not? I don't understand the difference. Can you explain, please?

In the circumstance where opinions are based solely on prejudices and biases.

So, if I object to sharing any such public space with any individual with a penis under any circumstances does that make me transphobic?

Some elements of your of your objection could be seen as transphobic, other elements not. It's OK if we don't agree on the definition of transphobia.

This ^^

The transwomen knew they were supposed to change in the private cubicle. They knew why. They knew they would upset the females in the changing room as yet they did it anyway.

Most often we make these judgements and distinctions in a court of law. But not a perfect system of course.

I am referring to the use of the terms 'flasher' and 'pervert' – both terms used on this thread.

I thought you were referring more generally, rather than about this specific person. You can certainly report those posts as not in the spirit of the site.

I'm not sure it's transphobic to question the motives of a pre-op, non-passing transwoman who insists on their right to be nude in women's changing rooms- that's not a trans thing, it's a creepy dude thing.

Your replies to other posts were a bit vague. Are you saying it was right for this transwoman to use the women's showers?

I did read them, yes. It was my opinion on the descent of the majority of most MN threads of similar topics. You don't have to agree with me, it's fine.

If the definition of transphobia is nebulous and open to interpretation, it's probably best not to throw the term around.

Most often we make these judgements and distinctions in a court of law.

That's not the case. Who uses changing rooms and showers is self policed on social norms. The number of court cases on this is non-existently small.

Even this case wasn't about that- the trust made the decision to let this male shower with the women because she was trans. That wasn't challenged in court. What was discussed was that, having decided on mixed sex showers, the NHS couldn't then insist the transwoman didn't get her penis out.

In the circumstance where opinions are based solely on prejudices and biases.

But in my case, it is because some individuals with penises use them to assault and rape and I can't tell the difference between those who do and those who do not, combined with simply wanting privacy and dignity and not having to see a penis unsolicited and also not wanting an individual with a penis to see me naked. This applies to all individuals with penises.

I don't see anything that described the layout of the changing facilities. In a workplace, i'd expect any changing, beyond removal of a jacket/outdoor clothing to be in a place that afforded suitable individual privacy so that you wouldn't be subjected you your colleagues underwear/nakedness or required to expose yourself to your colleagues. If trans person was misusing the facility and helicoptering his lady penis in a communal area then that is an issue with him - not the others.
By the sounds of it he is a serial grievance mongerer and would have been looking to be discriminated anywhere they went.

'Most often we make these judgements and distinctions in a court of law. But not a perfect system of course.'

When you say this, @Didimum are you suggesting that women should take it on trust that any biologically male person in a women's space is acting in good faith, and leave it to the courts to sort it out if the worst happens? That hasn't worked well, for example in the case of rape on a women's only hospital ward.

I'm sorry I can't respond to everyone responding to me – busy day! In essence, I fully admit (and apologise to those engaged in open discussion) that my initial post on this thread was also inflammatory and perhaps preemptive (we all get out of the wrong side of the bed some mornings). However, subsequent slurs did persist on this thread, and go unchallenged – always very disappointing to see.

I suppose some of my responses have been vague because it's a very complex issue and I don't have time to write essays, and have to convey my opinion in a few brief sentences. As I've said time and time again, no one here has to agree with me. I am here to express my opinion and not to proactively change the opinions of others.

Most often we make these judgements and distinctions in a court of law. But not a perfect system of course.

But in the moment ... a woman walks into a women's change room and there is an individual there with a penis exposed - how does she tell the difference between a flasher and a non-flasher?

That was in reference to how we decide if someone is 'a flasher' or not – not the use of changing rooms.

As far as I can make out there are only 2 things that we know happened.

The colleague was naked from the waist down in the female changing rooms, which the management had given him the authority to use.

The manager asked if they usually wore underwear.

The rest of it cannot be proven.

The reason that they lost the case is because the Employment Tribunal used the comparitor of a female rather than male.

However, subsequent slurs did persist on this thread, and go unchallenged – always very disappointing to see.

People get animated on the subject of women's rights. I don't think it's great to tell women it's their responsibility to police each others tone. The mechanism on this site is to report for deletion- if a post is really inappropriate.

It was my opinion on the descent of the majority of most MN threads of similar topics.

I think generalised slurs against the whole site are quite unhelpful to these discussions but I haven't reported that post because we are all pretty thick skinned.

On the specific topic: do you think it was OK for this pre-op, non-passing, transwoman to be showering with women @Didimum?

Most often we make these judgements and distinctions in a court of law. But not a perfect system of course

So if I'm getting changed at work, and I get flashed at, I should wait until a court decides whether I was either sexually harrassed or was transphobic because it was a lady dick and therefore I'm the one in the wrong?

I've been flashed a number of times, thankfully not in a women's changing room, and no court ever found hose men guilty of flashing me, but they were still flashers.

Roll on the day that every instance of flashing could be taken seriously and punished to the point that it becomes completely socially unacceptable.