"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?

separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women

But here is the rub. Define man and woman. If you change that definition, which is what is happening, then this is meaningless.

What would I do, as a copper, when I was sent to a shopping centre toilets where a male was perving on women?
What if he told me he identified as a woman?
What if I told you he was leaning over/under cubicle doors?
What if there was footage on his phone of it?

Would that make things different?

Given that voyeurism laws are not sex specific (as I'm sure you know) it wouldn't matter what he told you as to how he identifies.

What I'd hope you'd do as a professional police officer, is make an assessment if any criminal offences had taken place, and deal with them accordingly. Not particularly hard is it?

What I'd hope you'd do as a professional police officer, is make an assessment if any criminal offences had taken place, and deal with them accordingly. Not particularly hard is it?

Or people with penises use one toilet and people with vaginas use the other. You’ll find that most public toilets are already set up like that with signs on the door and everything.
Not particularly hard is it?

What about indecent exposure/sexual exposure to a young child? Does it not count if it is in a changing room? If a child is feeling intimidated? If they have an erect penis? If they are staring at my tween girl as she gets changed? Standing less than three feet away? There is no cctv in changing rooms so at what point is my child listened to and it is decided a crime has taken place? Or is she going to be dismissed as transphobic?

I wonder how many of our politicians and institution adminstrators realise they are sitting back and watching as this trans trend unpicks all the safeguarding instincts and reactions women have created for their daughters.

Or people with penises use one toilet and people with vaginas use the other. You’ll find that most public toilets are already set up like that with signs on the door and everything.
Not particularly hard is it?

None of which is any concern to the police...

..agree , not sure what the police could do when faced with a man in a frock. Cop a feel? geddit? :D

Great user name, Terrance and Philip..:)

Terrance what about the situation I outlined?

What about it?

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. If the original poster I quoted was indeed a police officer then they would know that, or at the very least should dig out their copy of Blackstones, or get on PNLD!

If someone was filming over or under a cubicle door then that person could be arrested regardless of how they identify.

I'd love to see the statistics on natal female voyerism.

If someone was filming over or under a cubicle door then that person could be arrested regardless of how they identify.

Except now they don't have to.

Other things women do in toilets include buying tampax, washing mooncups, miscarriages, most of which happen on the toilet, morning sickness, on the hour every hour, sometimes breastfeeding or expressing milk, changing clothes after heavy menstruation, escaping predatory males, etc.

Voyeurism doesn't start and end with trying to get a glimpse of someone's fanny or listen to them urinating.

Men don't do these things. But many of them fetishise them.

Harvey Weinerstein asked women to watch him showering as part of his campaign of rape/ sexual abuse. That was wrong and illegal

What criminal offence does asking a woman to watch you shower fall under?

But if Harvey identified as a women they no the police would not be able to deal with that individual

Identifying as a woman is not a defence in law for any offences under the SOA.

What about the example I outlined? What about the men we already encounter in parks and public transport?
The ones who know just how close to take things so that they can deny anything?

The ones who stand just a little too close on the tube? Is it a bag? Is it a dick?
The ones who stare and leer, who hide their erections behind bags or newspapers so they can deny wide-eyed if you challenge them.
The ones who follow you home winking but not ever actually doing anything.
There are a fuckload of creepy men out there who get off on making women and girls uncomfortable and scared.

As an adult woman, I'm more than confident enough to confront.
As a 13 year old, I was terrified and never did. Because that would mean me initiating interaction and I had no idea what would happen next.

And that lack of confidence is why these creeps target 13 year olds and and they know exactly how close they can skate and still get away with claiming they weren't doing anything

Those are the men we are talking about. Anyone thinking that those guys won't take advantage here is incredibly naive. They are going to love this.

For the ten zillionth time, I don't think anyone cares about trans people having a wee.

This is about the creeps out there who are getting a green light to expand their predatory shit into spaces where women and girls are particularly vulnerable.
This kind of policy is incredibly poorly thought out.

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. If someone was filming over or under a cubicle door then that person could be arrested regardless of how they identify.

Yeah this argument gets pulled out a lot.

'Self ID does NOT pose a risk to women because if anyone offends the police will deal with it'.

Ok.

1. How many sex offences, including violent rape, get as far as a prosecution, never mind an actual sentence? I think it's 1-4% of rapists end up in prison. The track record of law currently in place in the UK doing it's job to protect women is not good at all. (And indicates the low importance put on the safety/right of women to be free of sexual harrassment, assault and abuse). So is it really sensible to change the current system intentionally in a way that makes women and girls significantly more vulnerable than they currently are, and makes sexual offending a whole lot easier and trouble free?

2. In Target, the American chain store that made their changing rooms self ID, voyeuristic crime against women and girls has between double to tripled. Changing the situation in favour of the offenders has made a serious, significant difference. The evidence is there.

3. How many women/girls are going to be comforted and the distress and impact of the voyeuristic crime/harassment/assault fully alleviated by the police eventually turning up to take a statement about the crime, maybe looking at a bit of cctv footage? Because no one is going to rush with blue lights flashing. Impact on the police. Pretty low. Impact on the offender? Pretty low. Impact on the victim? Well my first experience of sexual assault happened to me at the age of 8 and I still remember it vividly, so quite possibly, a lifetime. Ridiculously disrespectful, uncaring and dismissive argument.

4. If you're going to argue that if an assault/crime happens then the police will deal with it so why worry, then surely by your logic trans people are just as safe in mens facilities and don't need the women's facilities. If they get assaulted/attacked/murdered the police will deal with it, they have nothing to worry about.

Issue here: male violence, male crime rates. Dumping the problem on women while removing their rights to consent, safety and equal respect is an appalling solution.

Dumping the problem on women while removing their rights to consent, safety and equal respect is an appalling solution.

Exactly.

If you're going to argue that if an assault/crime happens then the police will deal with it so why worry, then surely by your logic trans people are just as safe in mens facilities and don't need the women's facilities. If they get assaulted/attacked/murdered the police will deal with it, they have nothing to worry about.

I agree.

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 it committed by a man. Simple as that.

And why should I have to wait for the police to deal with it.

Women and girls shouldn’t be in a position where they are being exposed to or assaulted. Saying that the police, who are already stretched to breaking point and aren’t hanging around in toilets, will deal with it is very very cold comfort.

I was assaulted in a women’s toilet, by a man. There was a policeman present.
So excuse me if my faith in the police is low.

I don't agree Terrance . I don't think anyone, women, children or trans people, or anyone else, should be forced to enter a space where they feel unsafe and may be at risk. A police crime number afterwards - and in the massive, massive majority of cases that will be as far as it goes - is no bloody good to anyone, particularly the victim.

Issue: still male violence.

Other possible solutions to self ID: er, I don't know, maybe we could actually think about challenging male violence. Toxic masculinity and its stereotypes. The rights of others not to be hurt/trampled on by violent men. Better and more vigorous policing and prosecuting of violent crime. But while we fuel up the pigs for formation flight, how about a legal requirement for separate floor to ceiling unisex toilet/sink cubicles to be available as well as male/female facilities in all provision over a certain size/budget, plus in all new build facilities?

No idea Terrence - not a lawyer
That's very clear.

Except a male entering a women's toilet is an offence grin

No it's not.

Rather than just guessing, why don't you use Google. There's a world of information at your finger tips. It might be prudent to double check before coming across as a bit of a tit on the internet

A colleague was subjected to voyerism in a public mixed sex swimming pool changing room.

The same pool the school take vulnerable pupils with additional needs for their lessons. And we have had issues with men timing their showers with pupils' and spending a bit too much time hanging around.

It happens all the time already in unisex areas.

• by men.

Dumping the problem on women while removing their rights to consent, safety and equal respect is an appalling solution.

That's it in a nutshell. Women are always expected to acquiesce, accommodate and put others first, oftentimes to ignore our base instincts. Our mothers and grandmothers fought hard for our sex based rights and were supposed to just give them up without discussion?

Why?

Where does it end?

Who benefits from this?

What is the ultimate outcome for women and girls?