Study finds massive rise in sexual offences in Target gender neutral changing rooms

[CapnHaddock]

Target is a big chain of US department stores which introduced gender neutral changing rooms in 2016. Since then, voyeurism offences have tripled

womanmeanssomething.com/1034-2/

It’s a bit no shit Sherlock but useful

But this absolutely definitely would never happen, because sensible people would make sure that only True Trans were allowed to access those spaces!

Yes of course! I was having this row with a handmaiden on Twitter yesterday and had to stop because she was too stupid

There are several in the M&S thread right now arguing that the "floodgates won't open" and that we're all making a fuss about nothing because of course sensible measures will be taken, etc.

Sure they will.

Are there? Haven’t read it. I shall go and share the glad tidings

I'm sure they will be most welcome!

Thank goodness someone has made the effort to analyse this. Awful for the women involved of course but at least someone has taken notice. I would like to hope that the study will be widely publicized and lawmakers will pay attention but that might be too much to wish for.

Thank you for posting this.

India Willoughby was on The Wright Stuff yesterday and stated that there had never been any incidents of anything awful happening with Trans people in women’s changing rooms.
And everyone else (ALL men) in the panel agreed with her.

Does anyone do Twitter? Could you Tweet IW and The Wright Show please and point out their dangerous bullshit.

It's unlikely that the study will get any attention from the relevant parties, but the fact that Target's share price and profits have dropped since the change might. Eventually.

It's a difficult point to get across Lizzie without sounding as if you are claiming trans people as a group are sexual predators. Many people then liken it to accusing gay men of sexual deviancy as was commonplace a few decades ago.

There is a good chance that none or very few of the Target predators were technically trans people (or at least not the dysphoric kind). It's just that the law has provided a loophole for predators and the umbrella of what constitutes trans cast so wide.

It's easier to clearly define this stuff using written word rather than vocally. I would struggle on a talkshow because one slip of the tongue around all the Newspeak means your message is conveyed as totally different to what you intended.

Glad people are researching this.

Like let's think this through. What do people mostly buy at Target? House stuff, cleaning supplies, food, etc. Clothes, but more for women and kids than for men. Other than electronic good most of the stuff they sell is aimed clearly at female consumers.

How many female consumers are OK with potentially putting themselves in danger just to appear right on? What about if it's their children instead of themselves?

Thanks for highlighting this OP.

Argh! Sorry. I have reported the above and asked for it to be deleted. I didn't mean to paste the whole thread. Just:

There is a good chance that none or very few of the Target predators were technically trans people (or at least not the dysphoric kind). It's just that the law has provided a loophole for predators and the umbrella of what constitutes trans cast so wide.

This is a really important point.

Ovahere No one sensible claims that it’s insulting to all parents if we have safeguarding measures in school and children’s clubs. The implication is not that all parents are abusers but that some are and so we need to collectively manage the risk. That means the freedom of innocent harmless people is curtailed in some small ways to protect others. We do this because we recognise that the harm, the distress, the chaos caused by sexual predators, the after effects of abuse, are a bad thing for individuals and for society. We want to avoid this harm.

Wrappedup - yes exactly. I volunteer in a school and there are many safeguarding rules in place, for example volunteers are not allowed to take children to the toilet. I don’t get offended and assume this means the school is saying all volunteers are paedophiles. The policy is there to protect children because otherwise some sexual predators could use it as a way to access children.

My best friend worked at a preschool for a while and there were all kinds of rules about how she was and was not allowed to interact with the kids. She didn't rage or sulk, because she's a parent too and knows very well why those rules exist.

At the end of the day, males who think their right to validate themselves by crossing women's boundaries should override women's right to safety or comfort are exactly the kind of males we don't want in our changing rooms.

Exactly, if your response to "no" is "why not?" or "how dare you!" then all you're doing is proving that the person who just told you to gtfo was right not to trust you.

AngryAttackKittens
That's the key isn't it? People with empathy, people with children, ie women, are mainly the ones that get this.

We don't bat an eyelid at all the onerous safeguarding rules around children. But suddenly, we are meant to suspend everything that we know and agree that the label 'trans' and self ID means we can suspend all of that as there is some kind of magic that ensures that no pervert, sexual fetishist, paedophile etc will EVER take advantage of self ID.

Any time someone argues that the rules that are designed to protect women/children are too strict what they're telling you is that if those rules were not in place they'd do exactly the things that the rules are designed to prevent, imo.

Yes to empathy being key. And actually there are plenty of non-passing TIMs out there who don't enter woman-only spaces because they are able to empathise with women and because they don't want to frighten or distress us.

The issue here isn't really about whether people are trans. It's about whether they are entitled rapey knobheads.

It seems that this business of Target's share price dropping because of their changing rooms policy is fake news from Breitbart:

www.snopes.com/targets-stock-transgender-bathroom-policy/

It's still a bad idea though, even if Breitbart are against it.

The whole point is that people don't think trans people are a threat, but people who are can now access women's spaces.

There is a good chance that none or very few of the Target predators were technically trans people (or at least not the dysphoric kind). It's just that the law has provided a loophole for predators and the umbrella of what constitutes trans cast so wide.

Indeed. Its not necessarily about trans people at all. Its just about allowing male people access to female areas. Fullstop, regardless of what kind of male person.