M&S changing rooms

[SweetChilliGirl]

Was I unreasonable to send this to M&S?

Good morning,

Having not shopped for lingerie with you for several years, due to your policy of allowing trans-identifying men into the women's changing rooms, can I now be assured that, in line with the judgement of the supreme court males will no longer be allowed to identify their way into your single sex changing rooms, thus preserving biological women's dignity and safety? I would very much like to be able to shop with you again.

I look forward to hearing from to to clarify this important matter.

Regards,

Sweetchilligirl

I'm not talking about random shoppers not really looking at other people. I'm talking about the person who's job it is to staff the fitting room, hand you the little tag, check you've not got too many items, take them back off you if they're not right etc. Those people will be engaging with customers, close to and hearing them speak. I think its highly unlikely they won't be able to identify a TW. I know people claim there's loads where you 'can't tell', but genuinely I've never seen this. And it's a bit unfortunate that given the number of TW that are in the public eye there's not a single one who you can't tell, so that doesn't help to prove otherwise.

Give me a male persons “good” reason for wanting access to women’s toilets.
If you continue obfuscating I’ll just have to conclude you are, in fact, talking bollocks.

Which are also important. Women don’t just ah e the right to safety, we have the right to privacy and dignity too, heaven forbid.

But safety does come into it when little girls and women have been filmed by men putting their phones under/over cubicles

You can believe me or not believe me - it doesn’t really matter. I still at no point have implied or directly said anything in defence of a transwomen entering a women’s sex space.

I ask you to make clear your definition of ‘predatory’ because there are an awful lot of threads on MN where posters will freely define it as sexually predatory. So yes, I think it’s important to make the distinction when throwing the word out.

All this talk about not being able to tell if someone is a woman or a man who identifies as not a man. Men who identify as not men have been getting interviewed on every major news channel since Wednesday and every single one has been quite clearly male in appearance and behaviour.

You've added the word sexual, which is interesting isn't it.

I didn't say sexual predator.

Although I will add there are plenty of men who do identify as women for sexual purposes.

Making women comply through entering our spaces is part of the Kink.

Ray Blanchard acknowledges it in his work on trans identifying men.

Women have the right not to be used as part of a man's kink.

The mythical passer.

The only time they pass in reality is in a picture with loads of filters.

https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/

Ray Blanchard on autogynephilia

Exactly. Even the more "feminine" looking men just look like men who have had lots of surgery. Ella Morgan was on GMB saying he would still use women's loos. He is quite clearly a man!

Thanks for clarifying – you can think I’m talking bollocks all you want. That’s your opinion. There is more than one way to have a discussion and we can disagree on that.

So a male person’s good reasons, if they identify as a woman and subscribe to the belief system of gender differentiating from sex (or, let’s say, being of higher value than sex) could be for the following: validation of their own experience of gender/sex (as above, belief system), validation of belonging in what is largely a society set up to be binary, and/or safety should they have experienced male aggression/violence/intimidation of the type that is typically man-to-woman (eg sexual).

Since they have one half of ‘women’ supporting and affirming these reasons as ‘good’ and another half not, then I would think it’s fair to describe the dilemma as contested at the very least. Hence why I asked about moral absolutism.

No I know you didn’t, but many do use it as shorthand, so best to clarify I thought.

Thanks, @Didimum

In other words male entitlement and hatred of women.

Well I wasn't.

If some or any people are reporting that in their experience some transpeople ‘pass’ to them, you can’t call it ‘mythical’. Whether or not they pass to you personally is by the by.

Yep, we’ve established that.

Question, if the transperson passes how are they reporting it?

They would just think it was a woman.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, I used entitlement as a reason upthread.

Or do you mean the transperson asks them?

They are probably simply being polite.

Glad we agree.

Whether or not they pass to you personally is by the by
Well, it isn’t really, is it?
They either pass or they don’t. If even some people (and I’ll wager that it’s actually the vast majority of people, but whatever) clock them as men, they don’t pass.

If they know a transperson personally and consider them to be passable.

Oh right, so rose tinted specs there.

No because we are talking about whether they are able to access a women’s space undetected or not in any one incident in real-world application. If they happen to only encounter people on an occasion that think they pass, then they have successfully passed. Would they pass every time? Depends on who they encounter. It’s subjective.