"Wrong bathroom" sign in university toilet

[PinkChestnut]

I peak transed a while ago, but then have leveled out recently and taken the live and let live approach in my thinking.

However this sign in a Scottish university bathroom, designed by transpeople, bothers me.

"they are using the facilities they feel safe in - please do not take that right away from them"

So if there's a petite young woman in the toilets beside a 6'3 muscular male appearanced person and she feels uncomfortable, where does she go to feel safe? The disabled toilet?

Also "don't challenge them" sounds wrong to me. Like they're untouchable. What if they're acting inappropriate?

The idea that it is illegal for men to commit voyeristic crime in the ladies ie filming under the door, but not for women to do this, is cobblers.

The fact is that the vast vast vast majority of voyeurs of this type are men. So self ID exposes women massively more to this type of crime.

But to say it's not illegal for women to do this is plain wrong.

speaking as an older woman, who cannot wait long to go, I just go into the men's, if there is a massive queue for the ladies. Obviously I don't breathe through my nose when I am in there...and I just hover over the loo...have done this for years.

if anyone challenges me I plan to say that I identify as a man...can t they tell from my jeans and flat shoes?

So no attempt at prevention then? You don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards?

Ah the Cathy Newman school of debate. Bravo.

At no point have I suggested a free for all in the ladies (in fact I think it's a terrible idea) all I have done is correct two posters, one of whom in particular seems to really struggle with the concept of law.

But to point out when someone is clearly wrong, (factually wrong not just "I don't agree with you" wrong) is apparently misogynistic.

That is what you said, try and own it.

SnibbleAgain

People are only just waking up to what this all means.

I'm sure many people believe that there is a law backing up sex segregation in toilets.

Largely because they have never had to give it any thought.

They know full well that dads come in with their daughters, say. But it's never been a threat.

There's always an acknowledgement that this is against custom, but acceptable on this occasion.

In other words, women have some recourse.

To find out that actually no, you don't really have any recourse, because there is no law on which you can rely, is bad enough.

But it's a whole lot worse when you realise that this lack of law is now going to ride roughshod over customs and the protocols that allow women to challenge men.

It's like finding out there is no actual law that says you can't drive a herd of pigs through my back garden, and the next thing I know 15 herds of pigs have trampled over my dahlias.

Where have I said "I don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards?"

Forgive me Luca, but I'd own what I say, rather than your interpretation of it

OK TerranceandPhilip

Instead of getting involved in, what might be a pointless argument, because you largely agree with what we are saying, what is your opinion of sex segregation?

Do you agree that it's necessary?

And if so, do you agree that the current law is, or can easily be, exploited?

If there's a criminal offence (exposure/voyeurism etc) then the police can deal with it regardless of it being committed by a woman/man/trans individual.

This implies that an offence needs to be committed, and therefore a woman/girl is the victim of exposure/voyeurism and then the police will act.
Which does sound rather like ‘I don’t care if women and girls are assaulted and the police can deal with it afterwards’

Do you agree that it's necessary?

Yes in very specific circumstances.

And if so, do you agree that the current law is, or can easily be, exploited?
What law?

You said what you said, we can all see what it means. Even you.

"If there is an offence then the police can deal with it" expressly means you're not interested in stopping the offending.

I on the other hand will ensure 100% that a man in the ladies feels as welcome as a fart in a lift. I've had enough.

That's easy to say, but not easy to do since you'll be aware that the person possibly holds aggressive views towards a woman who challenges him, possibly is a straightforward pervert and definitely has greater physical strength.

I do think women should start going into mens bogs, to highlight the issue to cis-men.
Don't go on your own, tho. Men's toilets are often not safe, even for men or boys.

I've read through Terrence's posts and while they are a bit irritating I can't see that they've said anything "wrong".

The post cited above was in reponse to a poster who claimed that it was illegal for a man to be voyeuristic in the ladies, but not illegal for a woman to do that. It's just not true.

A woman might find it more easy to get away with, but that doesn't mean that the law is sex specific. It isn't.

"If there is an offence then the police can deal with it" expressly means you're not interested in stopping the offending.

No it doesn't.

So, once again, show me where I said "I don't care if women and girls are flashed at or assaulted or anything else, because the police can deal with it afterwards"

If the words are too big or tricky, you could place your finger underneath each individual word as you sound it out in your head. That might help? Or read the words out loud. If that still doesn't work, perhaps get someone to help you. I've only made a dozen or so posts on this thread. It should be really easy to find.

"I do think women should start going into mens bogs, to highlight the issue to cis-men.
Don't go on your own, tho. Men's toilets are often not safe, even for men or boys."

This is interesting.

I've used the gents a bit in pubs when younger, for various reasons, and the men do NOT like it. Of course they don't. They don't want girls / women wandering in while they are standing there nob in hand.

Also there is the issue that some men / some toilets are popular for cottaging. I think this is the basis of all teh weird memes with a "glamorous" TIM in the gents saying "do you REALLY want me in there with your husband?" which is bizarre to women as women do NOT see the ladies as a place for potential sexual encounters. Gay men have a rich history of sexual encounters in the gents, and men who aren't gay on the whole have learnt ways around this.

Where there are popular spots, gay men really do not want women getting into their spaces, do they.

This is a point about the swimming ponds at hampstead - the men's one isn't just a men only zone, it's well known as a spot for gay men to be, which must be nice, I imagine they're pretty rare. Women joining the mix is just going to ruin it.

Hopefully this sort of idea will start to wake up the gay male community if they realise their spaces are at risk.

The thing is though, women have no desire really to impede on men's spaces in the same way that so many men do women's, we're also not nearly so entitled, and of course generally we present to physcial threat. So, still very different.

Note I'm not a gay man (although I could identify as one I suppose!) but certainly in my neck of the woods in north london there are some places which the straight men avoid as it isn't the place for them .

No idea why your so hung up on the law terrence

Because it's important. Especially when people are wilfully getting it wrong.

The strongest and most obvious theme that works against self ID are facts. Scientific and legal. You're working against that in every one of your posts, and claim that your feelings and beliefs are more valid. That's exactly what this board has been arguing heavily against since this whole TRA thing has kicked off.

Other posters would see that, if they weren't so keen to join in on a pile on and actually read what posters were saying instead of trying to guess their view point and giving out a metaphorical kicking for it, (I'm looking at you Luca)

Having said that the whole cottaging thing especially in public bogs is an issue because boys walking in on sexual activity / etc is just not good is it.

There was a really interesting article recently in defence of it which simultaneously said "if a boy walks in everyone stops" and "I had my first sexual experience with a man in a public toilet when I was a boy" so....

Different issue to the thread

BUT

The gents is a men's space with it's own rules, same as the ladies.

Ok, this thread is getting a bit odd...

AFAIK, there were a small number of women who claim that Harvey Weinstein raped and / or sexually assaulted them. There is a large number of women who claim that he behaved, or tried to behave, inappropriately towards them, including trying to wreck their career if they did not acquiese to his requests. There is a large number of men and women who acknowledge the Weinstein had a reputation in the business for being inappropriate

Asking someone to watch you shower is not illegal unless they are a minor and it is deemed to be sexual activity with a minor. It may be a breach of employment T&Cs. It is grim and abusive, as it is basically getting off on making another person uncomfortable. But not necessarily illegal.

Similarly, there are no laws preventing a man entering a women's toilets (or vice versa), but there are regulations governing the provision of sex segregated facilities in most of the places that people will use them outside private homes. And until recently there was strong social pressure that a man in a women's toilet or changing room would be required to leave - now we have Top Shop, M&S and others falling over themselves to accomodate not just TIM but men who "feel like a man" on a Monday but "feel like a woman" on a Tuesday

It is important not to cite imaginary laws when arguing against self ID.

Because it gives people the room to dismiss anything else said.

The argument that we have is good enough, the fact that 98% of sex offenders in prison are male, the fact that men are waaaaay more likely to behave in predatory, creepy, voyeuristic ways to women (and sometimes other men) than men are. The fact that looking at #metoo and similar, that pretty much all women have stories of men being creepy & worse, that this is a background to our lives, and so to simultaneously claim that opening all women only spaces up to men will be AOK is ridiculous.

That the laws that we have, have evolved over years from property laws, they are not great when it comes to interpersonal stuff. They were also written from a male perspective, so we have laws that cover the sort of violence that men do to other men, but the sort of things that men do to women that fundamentally impact on their security and safety and so on are often not illegal, or seen as trivial if they are. This is changing slowly but we still see things that are surprising (upskirting not illegal. teacher perving on girls he was teaching not illegal). There is a lot of catch up to do, and this means there is a BIG space where men can do stuff to us that is scary, threatening, unsettling, these are generally sexual in nature, but are not strictly speaking criminal. These are the things that the men will do in the changing rooms etc. And we won't be able to do anything about it.

This isn't trivial, unless you think #metoo is trivial.

So actually I'm going to say, which I didn't before, yes we should go on about toilets and changing rooms.

And about sports, prisons, crime stats, "firsts", quotas etc.

The other point is that while we have a large number of pervy men in society, and a large number of men who just don't like women and enjoy upsetting / scaring them, that this number is large enough that pretty much all women have had multple instances usually starting from when they are very young, secondary school age usually,

Most men are fine.

This is also not about demonising men. Another accusation.

I agree with the posters who have said that we will be safer in the Gents if self ID comes in.

And if so, do you agree that the current law is, or can easily be, exploited?
What law?

The law that says it's fine for men to enter women's toilets. In other words the lack of law to the contrary.

Toilets are not about the law. They are about customs and protocols.

And those customs and protocols are being ignored.

Therefore, women's protection is not being upheld.

The reason for that is the trans-ideology.

Giving the green light to demolishing customs and protocols.

Publicising this will affect public opinion, which will, in turn, reinforce customers and protocols. But, at the same, and in the meantime, women's vulnerability over this issue needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

The #metoo campaign has changed public opinion over sexual harrassment.

Sexual harassment was always illegal. The law was there. It was being ignored.

Now stupid men are taking to Twitter saying oh my God we can't even flirt with women.

Men who wilfully misunderstand the difference between sexual interest and sexual harassment are feeling the pinch.

Because of public opinion.

If the means by which women are protected are no longer adequate, then yes, the law needs to listen and provide for it.

You said you believe in sex segregation under certain circumstances.

For the sake of minimising argument, what are those circumstances?

Yy, it is really important to be precise in quoting laws (and facts and statistics). As a pp said, we have facts, scientific and otherwise, on our side. If we start making stuff up, we start to lose the arguments.