AIBU - women are totally U to not want boys in the women's changing room

[ShotsFired]

So apparently it IS completely U and on women to not go swimming anymore, use cubicles, cover up with towels etc, if they express a desire not to get changed with boys in single sex female changing rooms. They have nowhere else to go (the men's being a seething pit of danger), we are denying them their rights and are being outright prudes and weirdos for saying politely that we'd simply rather not be naked with them standing there with their naturally curious young eyes. Also because girls and lesbians or something.

There seems to be no comprehension that their grudge should actually be with the venues' poor provision of safe and/orfamily-friendly facilities, so instead they just #NoDebate their fellow women and expect us to just make ourselves ok with it instead

The longer it goes on the easier it is to see its just male rights activism dressed up as an equality movement.

(the men's being a seething pit of danger)

This is the bit they need to be called out on - why are TRAs so intent on calling women transphobes when it's men that are apparently so dangerous, so genuinely transphobic, that it's too dangerous for someone to go in there for a wee?

I think the debate is being framed in the wrong way. The major argument should be about where and when same sex provision is important (if at all).
Are the people who argue for people with male sexed bodies accessing provision for people with female sexed bodies of the view that the same sexed provision is wrong/unnecessary? If so, whilst I disagree, I think this argument has some merit and the debate is not a trans one but one about the pros and cons of same sex provision.
If they are arguing for same sex provision whereby some male bodied people, but not all, should access provision designated for female bodied people, it is difficult to credit their argument with any merit, primarily because the moment a person of one sex enters a provision designated for people of the other sex, it no longer remains a same sex provision.

are being outright prudes and weirdos

Nah. We're terfs. Bigots. Transphobes. Choose your insult.

I'll take one from the top and two from the middle please @TerfsUp

I think that makes me a bigoted hateful transphobe?

Ha! Obviously some people are just very angry that the Manfriday swimmers have got some mainstream press attention and that anyone with a shred of logic will see self-ID for the ludicrous old twaddle it is.
What load of handmaidy balls - 'oh I don't mind! Pervs can just wank away in front of me, there is absolutely no situation ever that will possibly be a concern, it's just fine...' ad nauseam

@msbeaujangles, I think I would classify as one of those people. While I do think there are valid concerns around self ID in medicine, sport and prisons, in day-to-day life I would support a fully unisex society. Not because of pro trans reasons but because I believe we're ridiculously prudish and I (and I want to stress here that I know these are my views and mine alone and know they are at odds with a lot of people on here) cannot fathom why anyone has such a deep distaste or fear of being in an ordinary situation (swimming, gym changing rooms, toilets) with members of the opposite sex. I don't believe the human body is inherently sexual unless in a situation where you want it to be. I've lived in house-shares where I'm the only female and happily walked around in a towel or my underwear. I just don't get the problem. I don't feel any need to hide my body away from anyone (obviously I wouldn't parade down the street naked but in situations that require a state of undress as mentioned above). I can't help thinking that feeling uncomfortable in those situations is more down to your own hangups. And yes, I have experienced sexual violence, and it didn't change my opinion. But as I said these are my views and I accept other people feel differently, I have just never been able to understand the very British fear of naked bodies, particularly those of the opposite sex. That's why I don't feel particularly concerned about self ID, I think pervs will be pervs whatever the rules, and if we'd historically been a unisex society where women weren't hidden away, perhaps we'd see less instances of voyeuristic sex crimes anyway.

slothface I have kids, and can remember the age at which they started to ask for bodily privacy. So no, I don't accept its cultural, or that more nudity or mixed spaces are safer for women.

Your talking about children yes? little boys under 8 who are just as entitled as you to be in the womens changing rooms or is this another trans thread?

Why would anyone have a problem with a small boy in women's changing room? or are we talking teenagers here?

Very small boys - small enough that regardless of sex they are unlikely to be able to manage alone - are a separate issue to trans though!

Banning dependent small children (say under 6) from the women's does effectively ban their mothers in many cases.

Many women could not get out and about if very small children could not accompany them. That's not a right of the male to be anywhere, but of females not to be excluded for having been left holding the baby, one way or another.

The mothers of 3 or 4 year olds can't be lumped in with TIMs!

I can relate to quite a bit of what you are saying @slothface. I back packed around the world and learned to cope with a guys washing their tackle in sinks beside the ones in which I was cleaning my teeth. The first time this happened, whilst I was taken aback, the manner in which they did it (totally functional with no regard to me) meant I found it weird and surprising but not threatening. I am also OK with receiving care from health care professionals of either sex. However, I recognise that this is about me and my lived in experience and I don't have an expectation that others should experience these things in the same way as me or that if my life was different, that I wouldn't have different personal preferences.
Last year I was diagnosed with breast cancer and ended up having a mastectomy. Whilst in hospital I went through a period of feeling (and actually being) very vulnerable. I actually found these feelings the hardest bit of the whole cancer experience. It made me realise how fortunate I had been to have reached my mid forties and to have not experienced such feelings before.
During the time where I was most vulnerable, my need for dignity and privacy became really important. I was in a bay of 4 women but for a short period the loo in the bay was out of order. Nurses had to help me make my way to the mixed sex loos at the end of the ward. During this time I had to pass male patients. I am still surprised how upsetting this was for me and I can't quite work out why. I did not think I was at risk of harm, I did not fear sexualised behaviour, I just found it really undignified and at the time I really didn't mean it. I remain ever pragmatic about the need for the NHS to cut costs, and I am not jumping up and down about the above. I am, however, very pleased I had my same sex bay and only had to experience the 'walk of shame' for a couple of days.
I have returned to not being the person willing to use the cubicle that has the lock that doesn't work because I am not worried about people catching a flash of me should they try and come in when my leg or arse isn't holding it shut. I also remain sympathetic and supportive of those who would not be OK about this.
There is a lot of talk about threat of violence and sexualised behaviour in relation to mixed sex provision. When, where and how these risks can be mitigated is important to debate. However, I think it is also important to recognise that privacy and dignity (which are human rights) are also important and this can often be afforded through same sex provision.
I don't think the privacy and dignity of trans people should be compromised by them having to use same sex provision designed for people of the sex as the one that them being born of causes them distress. I also don't think same sex provision can remain same sex provision if you allow a person of a different sex into it.

Surely this is a different issue? Usually it’s under 8 who can be in the opposite sex changing room. It’s unreasonable to expect them to manage alone and yes I would consider it dangerous to send my 5 year old into the men’s unaccompanied aside from the fact it would probably take him about two hours to change on his own. Should I then not go swimming with him to avoid subjecting someone to the ‘curious gaze’ of a five year old?

It's all part of the bigger issue/thin end of the wedge thing I think.

At present, some venues have decided that children under 8 (usually) can accompany their parent into opposite sex changing rooms as a courtesy/selling point to the parents - it's not a law or anything I don't think? That is not the child's fault.

Parents are also used to having kids round and (usually) regard a bit of naked flesh as nothing to worry about as they live it every day and they also want to take their kid swimming etc. That is not their fault either.

And they have concerns about the ability of their child to sort themselves out in the correct sex changing room. Also not their fault.

But then there are all the other women who are using the same facility who do not want males in female changing rooms and are not used to it - definitely not adult males, almost certainly not older male children and actually, younger boys are not great either, given their natural nosiness and tendency to stare and make random comments (we all know a kid who's blurted something awkward out!). Guess what - also not anyone at fault here.

All the above are fair enough and reasonable positions.

But it comes down to one group's rights seemingly automatically trumping another, with no recourse or alternative available.

The group of women who use the facility as women, not parents, are finding their rights are "automatically" lesser and that they should be the ones to just get over it, or scuttle off into cubicles, or contort themselves under towels, or simply not use the facility at all. Why not send the mums into the cubicles and leave the open plan bit to the larger group of women? Why does the minority group take over the majority? Why are the women fighting women instead of elevating the issue to where it should be better family facilities where nobody is inconvenienced or made to feel unwelcome? Or in fact looking to make the male changing room safer (in reality or perception)

My 3 year old dd is just as likely if not more likely to stare and make inappropriate remarks than my 4 year old ds, both would be 100% innocent. Is she not welcome either?
If your uncomfortable then you go into the cubicles, a boy under 8 and you have equal rights to be there.
Its not mine and my 4 year olds problem, its yours so you need to sort it out.

I have 2 dd's under 4 and an almost 8 year old ds. If I took them swimming on my own there is no way I would let my ds go into the men's changing rooms on his own while I went in with the girls. He is not a risk to anyone in the woman's changing rooms - he's far more concerned with getting in the pool than staring at anyone else in there! However I have no idea who is in the men's changing rooms with him and who could be looking at HIM getting changed.

This has been done before, but it is women fighting women to say that those who cannot access facilities without their children in tow should fuck off. There is a mindset among some people that mothers in the role of mother should be all that society socialises women to be (quiet, apologetic, take up as little space as possible) and take their place firmly at the bottom of all possible piles and the end of all possible lines.

I had a conversation with a woman who felt her want to walk about the changing room naked to apply moisturizer in front of the mirror in the communal area, then return to the only cubicle which she had her clothes in to continue to dress, trumped my need to get myself and my children (then 6, 4, and 1 - the eldest a girl, then two preschool boys) dry and dressed.

She didn't need the cubicle and the whole changing room, but felt I should change in the disabled toilets with my 3 kids because she wanted to use the cubicle and walk around the communal area without the boys potentially seeing her.

I rolled my eyes at her, her wants in that case did not trump mine.

Biology and socialisation and years of patriarchy mean women often have sole charge of very small children. If children are allowed in the facility, then mother's have to be allowed to take their very small children into changing rooms and toilets.

When the children are capable of using facilities alone it is a different issue, but taking a very small child of either sex with you isn't about protecting them from adults of their own sex, but about the fact that while children are under about 5 or 6 and unable to navigate facilities alone, their mothers would be largely trapped at home in many cases otherwise.

That's what I mean. I say this with all politeness (as I am genuinely interested in the debate and other POV), but if you know your child will be likely to make comments, isn't the onus on you to take them into the cubicle to avoid that?

Although saying that, all this charged talk of "it's your problem, tough shit" is needlessly aggressive when there is a solution (unisex changing villages/family changing etc) that makes everyone happy.

This would apply to women's refuges too - it's about the woman, who in the role of mother to small children is at her most vulnerable to abuse at a partner's hands.

Would you ban a mother of a young male child from bringing her child to a women's refuge? Many women would remain trapped in abusive or violent relationships if the only choice was to leave their small children or put them into care in order to leave.

Women and young children have always been grouped together for a reason - they are the most vulnerable, and women would often be unable to access necessary basic facilities if they could not take their small children.

So your problem isnt actually with young male children at all?
Its any person who may look at you or make comment, why make a thread vivilifing little boys and not just children with no filter?
My kids never had made comments I was just pointing I out little boys are not the problem or a threat to you.

I have never said anything about being a "threat" to me? Just saying that there are women who, quite fairly and reasonably, would prefer not to be undressed round males.

Just like you feel it is fair and reasonable for them to accompany you.

Both of these are valid opinions.

I would've liked to have a civil and rational discussion as to how we equalise these POV, but if all you are interested in saying I have "a problem", that's not really going to happen is it, so I shall step away for now and wish you well and that you have a warm, cosy afternoon

What do you think he they are to you then?
Its fair and reasonable to not what to undress around adult males, actually its fair and reasonable not to undress around child males but then that is your responsability not to, not his to stop existing in a place he is allowed to be in.
Why would a 4 year old boy make you any more uncomfortable than a 4 year old girl? Whats different between my 4 year old ds and 3 year old dd?

Well that was weird.

I'm sorry I've said this elsewhere, but 'why are you so against unisex, it's an outdated attitude to the healthy human body' sounds to me exactly like 'don't be so prudish get your tits out'

To be fair the person I was talking to hadn't meant what she said in the way that I thought she meant it

But don't call us prudes. Some of us have even had sex.

Why can't we have private changing rooms? For one person, two people, or a family? Having been to boarding school and grown up in the 1970s I do not get the prurience and salaciousness that currently surrounds sexual activity and or gender politics. Grow the f* up people!