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

Exactly. Why do women’s thoughts and feelings always come below those of males. Even one woman saying no or showing concern for whatever reason should be enough.

I said 'contextualisation' not 'definition'. To your 'minimum age' question, again, I think it needs contextualisation. It's OK for you not to agree with me, I don't welcome sarcasm so won't be engaging with your questions.

I didn't say they they to give justification.

I agree 'public place' can definitely throw up a lot of grey areas.

Of course you won't engage with me because the answer should be 'never'. NEVER is it ok for a man to get his penis out in front of a woman or girl without her permission.

In public. In private. In a changing room. In a classroom. In a doctor's surgery. In an operating theatre.

Most men know this and don't get their penises out. If men are getting theirs out in front of you or you are getting yours out in front of females, then your boundaries are completely and utterly fucked.

This is what I mean my contextualisation. Thanks for posting this. In this instance, I think the individual should have adhered to the policy they were given, unless there was some acceptable reason why that was not possible (for example, doors of the cubicles were broken).

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')

Transgender women are males. Males are overwhelmingly more likely to be flashers than women, therefore a "belief" that they are more likely to be a flasher is a FACT and not a belief at all.
How then can it be transphobic?

No, I won't engage with you because I don't find sarcasm useful to a discussion.

As I've said before, I'm not here to change your opinion, simply to express mine. If you want to tell people what they 'should think', go ahead and do that. I have freedom of opinion, just the same as you.

Private' is my home. Having said that, if a plumber with a penis dropped pants in my bathroom and exposed said penis it would also be flashing.

@Didimum do you agree that the example given here is an example of flashing?

@Didimum the legal definition in the U.K.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides a clear definition of what indecent exposure is in the UK. Indecent exposure is an offence where: A person intentionally exposes their genitals, and. They intend for someone to see them and be caused alarm or distress.

Given that this individual only had permission to use the cubicles in the womens changing room it is reasonable to state that exposing their genitals in the communal area of the womens changing room would be an intentional exposure intended for someone to see them and to cause alarm or distress.

That's a really interesting point to think on – and I will think on it. I certainly agree that the area of prejudices and biases throw up a lot of grey areas, and I do agree that women unfortunately have to rely on biases more so than men due to the treat, as a group, they are under. And, as I said, it was a simplistic example.

I agree 'public place' can definitely throw up a lot of grey areas.

But the common factor is that the penis is being exposed in an unsolicited way to a non-consenting woman.

Surely this is the essence?

We used to say that if a person with a penis used that penis to penetrate a woman with whom the penis person had signed a marriage certificate that it was not rape. We now agree it is rape (I assume).

So, even if an individual with a penis exposes said penis to a woman in the context of marriage when it is unsolicited and unwanted then surely it is flashing?

And with that as the bar, surely the plumber exposing a penis is flashing?

By the information available I don't think there is enough evidence to make that call one way or another – however, I'm certainly interested to read more on it should more information become available.

You called us transphobic holes.

You think it is ok to expose penises to females if the context is right.

You have the freedom to think exposing penises to females is right and to try and find loopholes to be able to do it.

And you don't like it when you request contextualisation and someone contextualises the wrong contextualistion for you and you call it 'sarcasm'.

If men and women were happy with seeing each other naked there wouldn't be separate male and female changing rooms. In general, men and women aren't happy with seeing each other naked, because it is a violation of their privacy and dignity. So we have separate male and female changing rooms.

The thing I'm not personally clear on from the information I've read (and I think this came up earlier in the thread) is whether the person's penis was actually exposed. Please link me to the relevant source if it's come up and I've missed it.

The recent post that brought up the policy the person was given though (cubicle only changing, and whether they wilfully ignored that with the intent to cause harm or distress – I definitely see that as pertinent.

Rainbowshit
Private' is my home. Having said that, if a plumber with a penis dropped pants in my bathroom and exposed said penis it would also be flashing.

@Didimum do you agree that the example given here is an example of flashing?
By the information available I don't think there is enough evidence to make that call one way or another – however, I'm certainly interested to read more on it should more information become available.

What other information do you need? Thankfully the law doesn't agree with you that flashing is only flashing if done in a public area.

The thing I'm not personally clear on from the information I've read (and I think this came up earlier in the thread) is whether the person's penis was actually exposed. Please link me to the relevant source if it's come up and I've missed it.

I'm asking about a hypothetical scenario where it was.

I have addressed all the above – you can go back and find it if you wish. The 'contexts' you gave were actually definitions, not contexts, hence why I viewed it as sarcasm.

I'm not really all that interested what DidiMum thinks, they're not the only person on the thread, I don't see any need to treat them like they are the arbiter of truth here.

Oh please. Let's not start that again. If you can give a reasonable explanation as to how you would know that a man was without his underwear without seeing his "bits" then go for it. I'm all ears.

The apologism for the sexual assault of these poor women on this thread is utterly disgusting.

Yes it is, but it's not uncommon on this site outside of FWR.

The information I would need is evidence to the person's intent to cause harm and distress. If you don't need that information to make a call, then that's fine. I didn't say 'flashing is only flashing if done in a public area' – I said it was the generally used definition. I also agreed it was a grey area.

Yeah I agree. We should stop engaging. The intention seems to be to fill up the thread so the spotlight on this inconvenient incident goes away. By inconvenient, I mean inconvenient to the "just wants to pee" "too dysphoric to expose their penis in female spaces" narrative.

The information I would need is evidence to the person's intent to cause harm and distress. If you don't need that information to make a call, then that's fine. I didn't say 'flashing is only flashing if done in a public area' – I said it was the generally used definition. I also agreed it was a grey area.

No it's not a "generally used definition". I very much disagree that there's any ambiguity about the intention of a person who gets their cock out in front of an unsuspecting female. I doubt a court would find it in any way ambiguous either if a tradesman entering your home got their cock out.