To be annoyed I had to watch GB News to see coverage of anti women protestors at Southwark

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

A mother, Miranda Newsom, had her gym membership suspended for a year after reporting an "unmistakably male" trans woman in the female changing room.

Why isn't this on the BBC? The reporter in the video is doing genuinely impressive investigative journalism, didn't we used to have the national broadcaster to do this sort of thing?

Maybe the women in Afghanistan should just identify their way out of their oppression 🙄.

Selective and unthinking empathy, yes. And, OK, all empathy is by definition selective and unthinking in a certain respect - what we empathise with is personal, reflecting who we are. But that's why I think what's interesting is how much capacity someone shows to extend empathy and reason (in the sense of trying to understand both their worst instincts and their best arguments) to "the other side".

I just don't see it in posts like Tall's above.

I do, in contrast, see it in, for example, many so-called TERFs' concerns about the recent younger shooter. I know I said myself in a post a few days ago that I saw him as another victim, of a kind.

Incidentally, I've read less about the older one, but from what I have seen, don't see much about him at all that I feel able to feel empathy for... except, ironically, perhaps, in one very telling way...

This ideology's demand that all of society performs unquestioning acceptance of the multi-faceted manifestations of so-called trans identification, whatever the individual transperson's unique needs, and whatever others' realities and needs may be, must be: 1) limiting treatment options; 2) distorting expectations (see the SC judgement, Good Law Project challenge etc.); 3) skewing understanding and promoting unhealthy thinking patterns on the part of trans-identifying individuals and their so-called allies (see Tall's instant, bizarre assumption of my own "dislike" above). Meanwhile, this extreme approach is also actively driving people to question the ideology (me), challenge it (recent court cases) and, in some instances, absolutely, yes, see it as an excuse for genuine prejudice and bigotry. And (again, returning to Tall's response to me about living in Afghanistan!), this presumption of "dislike" is also surely making it far harder for trans people and their allies to find potential supporters and simultaneously recognise and protect themselves from actual bigotry and associated risk.

I think the movement is eating itself from within, and in that sense, I do feel sorry for its truest acolytes, who have had foisted on them the absolute most to lose.

Sorry. Got myself in a bit of a waffly-post rut recently. For various reasons am spending a fair bit of time stuck waiting in places - appointments, meetings, travelling etc., plus required rests after them all as health so bad right now - and also sometimes just use posts to work out my own thinking where things feel complex...

Like, I've always found empathy interesting. Your post just made me think... Shouldn't empathy, to be truly meaningful, actually mean sympathising precisely where you don't really want to and it's not in your interests to sympathise at all? I mean, given that empathy means imagining and trying to feel someone else's pain, and no one really wants to do that, mustn't it therefore always be a bit self-interested cos, otherwise, it wouldn't actually be possible? Unless you're really a ridiculously, superhumanly good person? Or does none of that make sense?

Probably not.

#overthinking

Well yes, empathy is in effect quite altruistic. A concern for others that is independent of personal gain, a concern that does not depend on returned concern. Putting yourself in the shoes of another person even if there is no possibility you might suffer in a similar way.

Advantage is often taken of the empathy of women. We are socialised to be emotionally empathic and sympathetic beings (not to suggest men are not either but it runs deep in women). The blurring of rational thinking was illustrating the "why can't you just be kind" "how are they hurting you" "tw are women but sport is nuanced and complex" arguments made against women who are capable of seeing the world rationally. Have more empathy women, don't think it through!! You might be seen as a bigot!

#also overthinking

BTW, re: that equally earnest and empathetic post a few pages ago, re-pasted above, the below seems very relevant, appearing in The Guardian today. The author is the Assistant Opinion Editor at the paper.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/17/men-push-abuse-women-street-stranger

Title:

• A man pushed me in the street, he wanted to teach me a lesson. Is that OK now?

Quotes:

• Many women reading this will have experienced something similar: a warning that sharing public space isn’t a man’s job, it’s a woman’s

• As far as street harassment goes, many will have suffered far, far worse. But what made the incident uniquely disturbing was that it was the third similar encounter in as many months.

• I spoke to some women in my life about what had happened, and many shared similar experiences.

• And I can bet almost every woman reading this will have had a similar experience. Of men wanting to teach them a lesson – that sharing public space isn’t a man’s job, it’s a woman’s.

This certainly aligns with my experience, living in a big city. I find, weirdly, it tends to be far worse in spring and summer, when there can be something - a yell / gesture / swear / shove - every few weeks or so.

But just think about that. In response to women sharing a sense of vulnerability in public spaces, a poster here types: "[presumably you limit your movement, because the presence of men means that] you wouldn't be able to walk down the street". They post this to ridicule them.

And a day later, the Assistant Opinion Editor of the Guardian writes: And the next time I go out alone, on a weekday morning, I assume the brace position. I feel the threat of violence just under the surface. I carry suspicion with me. I wonder what my next encounter with a stranger will look like.

Yes, that makes sense - to me at least! That kind of "be performatively kind" empathy is sometimes less meaningful precisely because it gets society's applause. Showing a similar, less popular empathy for the woman wary of walking down the street (clearly there are some, with good reason), or the woman scared of using the mixed-sex loo following past abuse, simply doesn't get the same collective nod of approval - in fact, such women are often seen as deserving of ridicule or condemnation. As are those of us speaking on their behalf. And so, again, open debate about issues affecting all of us gets distorted. As does understanding of these. Crowd mentality is veeeery powerful.

Thanks for replying, btw. Been wondering about empathy for a while in the context of "Be kind! Nonononono, I didn't mean to HER, you bigot!"

but you're contradicting yourself. How do you know their views on the topic if the only place you ever see people talking about it is on MN? You must have discussed it with friends, family and former colleagues in order to know that some of them are supportive of trans people using relevant facilities (and, it can be assumed, some are not?). Otherwise you wouldn't have a clue what their views were.

Many posters on here are adamant that if everyone knew the full details of what fully accepting TWAW entails, and all the worst case examples, nobody would be supportive, and I disagree with that - there are lots of people (particularly younger generations that aren't just 'being kind' or performative or who haven't really given the whole thing much thought, but who honestly, truly, see their trans friends, family & acquaintances as their new gender and have no issue whatsoever with them using whichever facilities they want.

However it is equally true that many people do go along with a vague understanding of it just being a tiny amount of people with no real world implications, and who are then 'peaked' for whatever reason. In which case 'Nobody I know is that bothered,' isn't a great argument. You could say that nobody was that bothered about lots of the greatest scandals/miscarriages of justice in history until they became aware of the full details and/or how it might impact on them.

Nailed it

The other thing is that, as long as some women are "bothered" enough to be at risk of being unable to access some public spaces as a result, this is something that should be discussed!

And in this context, dismissing the entire subject because "I don't see it discussed anywhere else" is, itself, an indication that there's a problem. Something that affects a wide range of different people to a life-changing degree should be being addressed democratically, in open, fearless, debate - and isn't being (or hasn't been until very recently; more and more people are feeling able to speak out now - cf. a post above in this very thread, I think?, saying that TERFs are now "allowed" in AIBU!)

This perspective is also supported by the abuse women receive for speaking out (look at how many have ended up in court, for example; and the colleagues of the Fife and Darlington nurses who felt similarly, yet didn't feel able to stand up and fight for their rights). I mean, even just look at the tone of the "I supposed you're scared to go out by yourself!" and "Off you go to Afghanistan, then!" posts above. When a point of view is met with this and people see this happening, it becomes far more likely that there are others who are not speaking out who otherwise may.

I mean, I was one of them. The courage it took me to post on this the first time some years ago really shocked me. And after first speaking out in a work context - courteously and cautiously - I realised my hands were actually shaking. That's utterly damning.

Like Token says, it's not really convincing to say that silence is an indication of consent in a context like this.

And that's before you even consider that this context is compounded by misreporting, meaning people may not know the bigger picture - again, just look at this thread; and, even more so, the other recent one condemning people wanting to discuss issues like this as hate-filled. That's a line that's designed to shut down and scare off debate and open questioning.

GC feminism is left wing. Radical Feminism is left wing. The fight for women's rights is left wing.

One of the reasons people think the trans shitshow is all the fault of the left is that the far right have been using it as a culture war issue. In the UK, the last Conservative government caused this. PM May announced Self ID in 2017. It was all downhill from there. Liz Truss dropped the price of Self ID to a fiver! Men could become women for spare change!

Far right opposition to trans has nothing to do with women's rights.

It’s not at all. Ik a few post this a lot but it doesn’t make it the case.

I didn't say the man was a potential rapist. In fact, I told the manager, I wasn't afraid of being raped in a busy gym at 7.30am on a Thursday. I do object to ANY man in the female changing room, whether he is gay or straight, mean or 'nice', with his original genitalia or having had a surgeon cut everything off.
I object to a man being in the space where women are showering and undressing, even if he isn't changing clothes. This is not a right-wing objection: it is perfectly valid.

I didn't shout at him in the changing room. I spoke to him quietly, even politely, He started filming me then accused me of raising a fist at him (!) and called the police.

and he said he had more right to be there than I did, because of my 'foreign accent'. Xenophobe much?

Do you think ANY male should be allowed in female changing rooms, or do you have criteria? Legal paperwork? Makeup/long hair/wig? "women's clothes"? Penectomy? Or just any Tom, Dick (no pun intended) or Harry is allowed in? In fact, Southwark has changed their policy from case-by-case visual assessment to 'anyone can use any changing room that aligns with their gender identity" (Whatever that means to them as an individual.)

So, if a 14-year-old girl walks into the female changing room and there's a naked man there, she should take stock, be patient and try to determine if he's a 'nice guy' before being alarmed, complaining, fleeing? WOW.

and Southwark has changed their policy. No dress required. They told me the policy was 'case-by-case visual assessment' of how well a man mimics women, but now they say their policy is: Everyone is free to use the changing room that aligns with their gender identity (whatever that means)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying 🙄
And I'm sure you're an entirely genuine poster too.

that poster is implying women and girls should override our powerful 'ick' response and danger response, which is an instinct that has kept our foremothers ALIVE. We cannot ignore our sense of danger, and must act to protect ourselves. A man in the female changing room is more likely to want to peep, perv, film, flash than murder or rape, but it's all connected. NO males should be in female-only spaces.

Do you really not understand?

The issue is that
a) men are using spaces that should be women-only (we don't give a fuck whether they are your made-up "cis", whether they are trans, nor what they are wearing, just that they are MEN)
b) they are being permitted to do this by the gym owners

Can you not see that b) increases the risk for the women in that space? That the owners cannot distinguish between men (of all varieties) who are harmless, and men (again, of all varieties) who are sexual predators? If the predators claim to be women, the gym lets them into the women's changing room, and refuses to protect the women. They refuse to throw out the men, and ban the women instead.

Exactly. The man in question admitted that "I haven't cut anything off". I didn't ask that question, because I believe no men should be in female spaces, whatever their position on or addiction to genital surgery.

It isn't a private chain, but a COUNCIL-RUN leisure centre, one of EIGHT in London where they have this policy. At the time, their policy was that if a man wants to go in female changing rooms, he should talk to manager, who does a case-by-case visual assessment of how femme he looks. I told the manager, he looks completely like a man! She said, "They have long hair!" Regressive stereotypes. I said, a butch lesbian IS welcome in female changing rooms, just no men, whatever their hairdo.
Now, Southwark has altered their policy to: "Everyone can use whatever changing room they like, based on their gender identity." So, any man, with a beard, balls, the lot, can go in and if challenged, say he has a female brain.
My main gripe with Southwark is, they do not inform women and girls that they allow men into female changing rooms. This puts the pressure on women and girls to react: whether speaking to the person calmly and politely (the way I started our interaction), leaving or even giving up the gym. I have spoken to MANY women (including Muslim women) who a) didn't know the policy b) didn't know the policy but saw a man in the female changing room and were alarmed or even gave up their membership/changed gyms so they wouldn't have to deal with it. Some have taken to hiding in the cubicles until the man leaves the room. This policy is not progressive. Not inclusive. Not kind.

Niche? Southwark runs EIGHT leisure centres in the capital. Eight. There are hundreds of women every day at risk of seeing or being seen by a man in the female changing room at their local gym. Muslim women are upset, parents are upset, women are upset. Why don't you care? It isn't just one man. There are at least three in my (former) gym alone who use female changing rooms, and the council allows this. There will be others at the other 7 centres.
Current policy means if a 14-year-old girl walks into the female changing room and sees a man drying his privates with a towel, she must say nothing, not react, not object. Her choices are (as was initially told to me) freeze her membership (at no cost to her, how kind of Southwark!) to think about her options, use the disabled/single-user space, hide in a cubicle until the man leaves, or give up her membership. This isn't good enough! They are leaving women and parents unaware of their policy, which means other women have come across males in female space. Most do the typical thing women do: fright, flight or fawn. Survival instinct.

And, if a woman or girl complains, she is the problem. Southwark told me her choices are: freeze membership to consider options, use the cubicles/hide until man leaves, use the disabled/singer-user changing space, cancel membership. If a girl or woman speaks to the person, complains or maybe even if she leaves in a huff, SHE is the problem.