About Gender neutral loo

[paulhollywoodshairgel]

I was in a museum today and my daughter (15) left me to go to the loo. She then waved me over.. she said to me.. I’d rather not use the gender neutral loo. I said that’s fine and sent her down a level to the ladies. A woman the approached me and preceded to tell me off for not encouraging my daughter to use the GN loo. How she has a trans child and how are they ever going to feel accepted with people like me around. I’m ND and I always second guess myself 10000 times a day. I wasn’t in the wrong was I?? I just said ok go and use the other separate loo. Surely my child can pee wherever she feels comfortable??!! I hate conflict so I just said ok and walked off!

"I'm alright Jack" refers to only suiting your own interests. It doesn't fit here. Of course whether I choose to use a particular toilet is up to me, it doesn't extend to me saying "I don't mind using them so everyone else should". Now for the 52nd time - I don't mind if other people don't feel comfortable to do so, I wouldn't suggest they should. You keep deliberately overlooking that part.

The reason I said I haven't researched every possible scenario to be offended about is because you said 'things exist outside of what you've seen'

I know they do, but I can't know about everything without either deliberately researching it or experiencing it can I.

Regardless, If someone says its always womens toilets replaced and I haven't had that experience, me saying "not that I've encountered", is perfectly relevant as it disproves what you're saying.

"I'm alright Jack" refers to only suiting your own interests.

It's also an expression to describe someone's complacency over an issue that effects other people, but they don't feel effects them.

This issue is about all women and girls losing their single sex spaces and the increase in risk to them as a result. You are saying I'm alright Jack because you imply that I am going out of my way to find things to become offended by. This is not the case.

I have an interest in women's rights, I am a woman and a feminist. That means that I care about what happens to all women and girls, and that includes the ones I don't particularly like or agree with - like you for example - it also means that I have an interest in all things that impact upon our rights and take a keen interest when those rights are infringed upon or eroded.

You don't have to care about the same issues as I do, you don't have to be interested or do any research but you don't get to say it's not a problem because it doesn't effect you, that is you saying I'm alright Jack.

I also have noted your implication that I am going out of my way to find things to be outraged about. That's sort of amusing in a way, I mean the intent is shitty, but it's funny because I didn't ever go out of my way to be "outraged" over any of this, it just became increasingly hard not to see and once seen... well the anger just generates of it's own accord. And again, I feel zero guilt over being angry at the erosion of women and girl's rights and boundaries. You can't shame me out of it 😂

It's also an expression to describe someone's complacency over an issue that effects other people, but they don't feel effects them.

I can keep repeating myself but you don't want to take it in, so it seems pointless, but God loves a trier and all that. I'm not complacent about other peoples worries. That would be if I was saying "I'm fine using mixed sex toilets, nothings ever happened to me there, so you should be fine too". I am categorically not saying that. I am merely saying I don't mind using them, so please don't say all women don't want them because I am a woman and that statement doesn't apply to me.

I'm not implying that you're finding things to be outraged about. I literally explained my response in detail, point by point and you've ignored it (again) and gone 'yeah but what I think you meant by that is...'

You said 'things exist outside of what you've seen'
My reply is 'yes but without spending time deliberately looking for things I haven't seen I wouldn't know that would I, so my choices are based on my experience'

I honestly cannot fathom why you're so hung up on what I believe is fine for myself? It's like you have a preprepared argument that you're going to stick with regardless of what I say. I'm not trying to railroad anyone into thinking they have to use GN toilets, just that I myself don't mind using them.

Before the SC ruling Stonewall told all trans people they can use the facility they feel most comfortable with and with the exception of the Conservatives this was supported in Parliament. ( Starmer said women can have willies ! )

That meant transwomen used women’s single sexspaces because Stonewall was playing the transwomen are women card

After the SC ruling it was made clear that transwomen are not women. It was confirmed that being a woman is a sex based characteristic and transwomen are men by sexual definition.

So
When I consider the loss of women’s single sex spaces I’m not talking just about signage I’m talking about transwomen using women’s single sex spaces
Once transwomen do this those spaces have lost their single sex status and women have lost their rights to them

Of course now common sense has prevailed hopefully we’ll see the law on the Equalities Act 2010 and Building regs 1992 actually abided by

We have been seeing the erosion by stealth of women only spaces across the country.

That's all fine. I've not called into question the SC ruling, or mentioned trans people.

It doesn't have any bearing on me expressing that I don't mind using a mixed space if it's offered. Or to the other poster saying it's always womens spaces that are replaced for new gender neutral toilets - which isn't the case.

Why can't we all just be free to make choices for ourselves if there is a toilet for everyone (women, men, GN, disabled) like there was in the OP. Why has it got to be shouted down to submission that someone else's free choice is wrong.

The reason I said I haven't researched every possible scenario to be offended about is because you said 'things exist outside of what you've seen'

I missed this in the last post. Yes no one knows everything, but you have been shown many links to how there is an increased risk to women and girls in mixed sex spaces. You now know that this is an issue so you could search yourself if you were so inclined, but you're not because you're alright Jack! And you continue to argue that more people = increased risk even when you've agreed that point, but only when it comes to women's previously single sex spaces which are now mixed.

I'm not implying that you're finding things to be outraged about.

Yeah you are.

I literally explained my response in detail, point by point and you've ignored it (again) and gone 'yeah but what I think you meant by that is...'

I didn't ignore anything on purpose, I can't really see your point beyond you saying you just want to do what you want to do (fine with everyone here I think), and your subtext which is that women don't have anything to worry about what's all the big to do? (not fine, and wrong).

I mean if I've missed something else, please draw my attention to it, I'd be happy to reply to any further points you'd like to make.

You said 'things exist outside of what you've seen'
My reply is 'yes but without spending time deliberately looking for things I haven't seen I wouldn't know that would I, so my choices are based on my experience'

Well that would be grand if that's all you were doing, but it's not so...

I honestly cannot fathom why you're so hung up on what I believe is fine for myself?

Reading comprehension also not great today then? I've clearly stated repeatedly that you doing whatever you want to do is absolutely fine, there is not even one person arguing this point with you is there?

What I take issue with (also as stated repeatedly now) is your subtext of this is not an issue which you've beclowned yourself over now you've admitted you have no knowledge about this, just that you personally have never had an issue with it, flying in the face of multiple posters pointing out that there is in fact a big issue here and helpfully pointing you in the direction of travel to find out about it.

Your issue is finding a subtext. I don't have one. I'm telling you what I mean, clearly and repeatedly. I literally just care about what I want to do and am happy for everyone else to do what they want to do. How is that saying women don't have anything to worry about? I'm not making any comment on what other women should worry about, just telling you what I choose to worry about.

Or if you aren’t interested in theirs.

Reading comprehension also not great today then? I've clearly stated repeatedly that you doing whatever you want to do is absolutely fine, there is not even one person arguing this point with you is there?

Why are you so nasty, genuinely. If what I want to do is fine, and that's the only point I'm making, what conversation is there to be had?

Trans women are men so they are relevant here. So is the SC judgement because it clarifies that "sex" has always meant biological sex which has relevancy to single sex spaces.

Or to the other poster saying it's always womens spaces that are replaced for new gender neutral toilets - which isn't the case.

Clearly to those with a brain, my "it's always the women's that gets converted" is not to be taken absolutely literally because I am not omnipresent or omnipotent. I think most people understood what I was saying, and I later clarified that I have yet to hear of a previously men's single sex space being converted to a mixed sex space when the women's single sex space has been left unchanged. So far the direction of travel as far as I have seen/heard is that women's single sex spaces are being converted to mixed sex spaces and that disproportionately effects women - obviously - and benefits predatory men - also obviously... or not I guess.

Why can't we all just be free to make choices for ourselves if there is a toilet for everyone (women, men, GN, disabled) like there was in the OP.

If there were spaces for everyone (women, men, mixed sex fixed it for you, disabled) that would be fine, but this is not what is happening.

FWIW Third spaces were soundly (and angrily) rejected by trans women - possibly something else you are unaware of? - because for some of the most vocal trans activists, access to non-consenting women is actually what they want. They don't want a mixed sex space with women who agree to be in there, they want access to all women's single sex spaces and the non-consenting women therein. They can fuck right off!

Why has it got to be shouted down to submission that someone else's free choice is wrong.

Tell that to the women that confronted the OP, tell it to the TRAs. The GC feminists are not the ones who are doing this, we don't care where you go or which facilities you use, we just want single sex spaces.

The reason I mentioned it wasn’t so much your comments really.
Just an explanation as why some women do see their single sex spaces lost through the erosion of the word women.
So whilst it’s not obvious to many people with signage still saying single sex, the reality is the complete opposite
My reading therefore of @CohensDiamondTeeth post on the loss of these spaces was on that assumption

134 complaints in one year. Of all the times people had used a changing village in one year, there were 134 complaints? Of course one case of assault is one too many, but 134 out of how many is also an important number. Of course more will be reported in mixed spaces, but does that mean there is ultimately a major problem? Are the numbers higher than they have ever been? Has there been an increase or a decrease? 2/3 take place in the changing rooms, that’s still leaves 1/3 that take place outside of them.

How many assaults are reported on trains, buses etc? Are we looking to separate people on there?

Or, should we be focusing on who is perpetrating these attacks and finding a solution to that, rather than making this something women are supposed to be afraid of.

I don't think I'm the only one who is seeing the subtext tbh.

You can argue till you're blue in the face that all you are saying is you want to do what you want to do and for everyone else to do the same, but your refusal to see that there is an issue of increased risk to women and girls in mixed sex spaces is quite clear. The way you've been arguing with people here shows (to me at least) that you are attempting to pretend these issues don't exist.

I mean you've made the point you came here to make (apparently), we get it! Literally no one is telling you where you should go or what you should do, so what is your problem exactly? Job done surely?

Your DD chose to use a toilet to which she is entitled based on her sex. People who don't wish to use the toilets they are entitled to use based on their sex have been offered another option. There is no obligation for anyone else to take up that option.

If what I want to do is fine, and that's the only point I'm making, what conversation is there to be had?

Well quite, I've said exactly the same thing, but yet here you are still arguing with people. If that's all you've got to say then what further conversation is there to be had OneCoralCat?

😂

I'd be happy with single sex toilets, and people not trying to gaslight women and girls into thinking there isn't any issues with the erosion of their boundaries and rights. I wouldn't feel the need to be rude to anyone then.

Too true. She can stick to policing her own child’s behaviour.

My reading therefore of @CohensDiamondTeeth post on the loss of these spaces was on that assumption

Yes, thank you.

I think we shouldn’t focus on one area alone to tackle the problem
That’s never going to be enough imo

Or, should we be focusing on who is perpetrating these attacks and finding a solution to that, rather than making this something women are supposed to be afraid of.

Can we not focus on who is perpetrating these attacks and find a solution to that, while also recognising that having single sex spaces will help to reduce these kind of attacks?

Perhaps this isn't something women are supposed to "be afraid of" as in live in fear of and change the way they interact with the world because of, but something that could help them be aware of the risks of mixed sex spaces which in turn will help to keep them safer than if they had been unaware?

Or to put it another way, a return to common sense and sanity?

Will it reduce, though?

You think if someone is intent on assaulting a woman, a sign on the door will stop them? You think these guys are opportunistic and only commit the assault because the woman is right there in the changing village with them? 33.3% of the assaults happened outside of the changing area. 13 women, according to your numbers were assaulted in a single sex space. What will we do to stop that?

This is the problem with taking things out of context.

More assaults happen in mixed sex spaces ie changing rooms and toilets
Remove that mixed sex capability then remove that additional opportunity

Men will invade spaces if they are intent on assaulting women anyway. That’s always been the case. But mixed sex spaces perpetrates and feeds into that desire. It makes it easier for men on the margins to carry out an act against women

So, yes, it is sensible and logical to remove access to women’s spaces entirely.
Outside of that and how violence and abuse of women in other spaces is tackled is another matter and not relevant to the need for single sex spaces

Yes it will reduce the risk.

You think if someone is intent on assaulting a woman, a sign on the door will stop them?

No I don't think a sign alone will stop them, that would be stupid. But going back to single sex spaces and being allowed to shout it from the rooftops if a man enters them will help.

You think these guys are opportunistic and only commit the assault because the woman is right there in the changing village with them?

I think these guys are opportunistic yes, but that's about all I agree with in that sentence. Opportunistic predators are... well opportunistic, so they will use any opening they can to their advantage.

For the last few years women who spoke up (or wanted to) had the additional fear of speaking out to worry about on top of predatory men, because of no debate, the "twaw" bullshit lie, no platforming, police over reach, loss of employment, services and health care etc etc etc.

Now that we are slowly moving back to normality and the law has been clarified by the SC who have stated that sex always meant biological sex, women can now feel confident that if a man enters a single sex space, they can speak out, they are right to do so, and their rights to this single sex space are backed by the full weight of the law. We are returning to a time where we can say the "good men stay out so the bad men stand out".

I don't think sexual violence perpetrated by men will ever be stamped out unfortunately, but swinging the metaphorical doors wide open and saying "all comers welcome" was not exactly a clever plan to reduce risk or harm was it? I mean why put up any barrier to any crime right? Criminals are going to do whatever anyway so why not just let them? That's basically what you are saying, and it would be lunacy for the world to run that way.

We have laws and other social barriers for very good reasons, removing them was obviously going to cause those with criminal or predatory intent to celebrate the idiocy, and it obviously was going to (and subsequently did) cause incredible harms to women and girls that otherwise wouldn't have been put at such risk.

So what is it, do you think that removing all lawful and social barriers to single sex spaces is going to help somehow? If so how?

How would you "stop" these predators if you don't think laws or social barriers will help reduce risk?

@BoredZelda

You think these guys are opportunistic and only commit the assault because the woman is right there in the changing village with them?

Also there is the risk of indecent exposure and voyeuristic crimes to consider as well as actual physical assaults.

FWIW A man doesn't even have to do anything in a women's single sex space, his mere presence there will mean that women's privacy, dignity and safety (how do we know the man there isn't a predator, it's not like the predators wear signs around their necks!) is compromised as well as her lawful right to single sex spaces as per the clarification brought by the SC judgement.

Edit: bit in parenthesis and bold fail