Teen films girl in toilet

[FairfaxAikman]

And isn't even subtle about it.
Again emphasising the need for single sex spaces and the ability to challenge male bodies people in them

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/702003/fife-teen-on-sex-offenders-register-after-supermarket-child-attacks/

Why was a 17 year old male in the female toilets anyway?

He went in there for the purpose of committing crime. That at least is not speculation.

JellySlice
What is more significant I think is that he had clearly already been in the women's toilets with a carer, who allowed him to return to the toilets unsupervised. That does imply that he and his carer thought he was entitled to enter the women's toilets.

Yes that jumped at me too.
Those brilliant girls

Why are posters assuming transgenderism is is involved here? I’m reading this whole story as; He went with his career to use probably the male toilet. On his way out he spotted a young girl making her way to the women’s toilet and thought, “hmm there’s a chance here”.
He tells his carer he’s forgotten his phone, and carer nods for him to go and get it. (Never in a million yrs thinking he was headed for the women’s). Carer is not facing toilets!
He sneaks off into the ladies.
Nothing to do with being transgender.

McNutty, why are you calling the criminal 'he'?

We are all calling this person 'he' based purely upon the child's testimony and the statement by a police officer of hearing a "male voice". The report otherwise mentions nothing implying the criminal's sex. The journalist's language is entirely gender-neutral with respect to the criminal, but sex-specific with respect to the children and a parent.

What is the journalist not saying?

I don't assume transgender but I do see the link with self-ID. What is this person (and other people like them) going to do if self-ID comes in and they are told they can have unquestioned access to female toilets/changing rooms etc? maybe you are right and he got a 'lucky opportunity' in this case but with self-ID he would be able to walk right in whenever he wanted and counter any challenge with 'I self-ID as a woman'. Not a situation I would want.

So many reports on that paper of men downloading child sexual abuse images

Ffs what is wrong with men

I can’t begin to understand

Aw those poor girls :(

I too am very puzzled by the lack of any sex based pronouns

It leaves several questions unanswered about whether they were "allowed" in the toilets. About whether the carer was male or female and what he or she may have to do and the situation that puts them in 're intimate care and toilets and boundries.

And how terrifying for thise poor victims.

More girls who no doubt will have their lives restricted as it's just not safe any more :*

:(

If that's true, McNutty, then why is the article going to such lengths to avoid saying he/his or the boy/young man? It's very strange, and it's not for anonymity as reports of other crimes by unnamed under-18s don't usually avoid mentioning whether they are male or female!

The article describes the offender solely in gender neutral terms (the 17-year-old, teenager, the accused, his client) and uses the pronoun 'their'.

The references to description and voice being that of 'man / male' are reported speech and in quotation marks.

There's probably someone on mn who knows the toilet set up at Halbeath Asda store in Dunfermline.

The reporter identifies everyone's sex apart from the perpetrator.

Question is why.

And here's another report by the same newspaper, referring to a 17 year old male and 17 year old man (so it is not as if their reports never identify the sex of minors).

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/649849/teenager-charged-and-released-after-mans-death-in-dundee-car-crash/

What is this person (and other people like them) going to do if self-ID comes in and they are told they can have unquestioned access to female toilets/changing rooms etc? maybe you are right and he got a 'lucky opportunity' in this case but with self-ID he would be able to walk right in whenever he wanted and counter any challenge with 'I self-ID as a woman'.

There is no link with self-ID. If the perpetrator has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment then they would be allowed to use the toilets today (subject to exceptions which are unlikely to apply where there are cubicles). If the perpetrator doesn't then they can be prevented from using the toilets. Self-id does not change anything.

What the case highlights is sadly there are criminals who will follow girls into toilets and commit sexual offences - rare but it happens. And whatever the legal status of the perpetrator the offence would have happened.

"If the perpetrator doesn't then they can be prevented from using the toilets".

By whom, Sarah?

The 10 year old girl?

SarahAr
How do we tell who is genuine before an assault rather than after someone is harmed?

How do we know the person who just walked in doesn't have previous form elsewhere, and isn't already banned?

Currently, men in womens spaces don't have good intent, and telling women to learn to override their reaction to be inclusive isn't good enough.
In any other context thats considered risk taking behaviour.

Do they carry authentic ID then Sarah or what?

How are we to check if they have gender reassignment, in which case we make way for them or whether they do not in which case we, what? Get into a scuffle with them?

If the perpetrator has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

How does anyone know if someone else has the 'protected characteristic of gender reassignment'? Would you challenge someone and demand to see proof? I wouldn't.

I think "gender reassignment" now means someone saying that they now identify as a woman or girl.

That's it.

And is possibly what led to the incidents in the toilets in the first place.

I don't think 17yos can have the 'protected characteristic of gender reassignment'.

Interstingly the issue of access to public toilets was recently discussed by Ann Sinnott following her resignation as counsellor from Cambridge City Council.

"Ann Sinnott stood down from Cambridge council claiming that the authority was treating women with contempt and was acting in “dereliction of the law”. She said a policy that resulted in single-sex facilities, such as toilets or changing rooms, being “abolished at a stroke” was undermining women’s rights and was a breach of the equality act."

She discusses two situations she was personally involved with, raising the issue of safety, privacy and dignity for women & girls and also makes the point that private toilets (eg shops) are a separate matter.

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327711-Has-Transgender-replaced-Gender-Reassignment-in-protected-characteristics-of-Equality-Act

What the case highlights is sadly there are criminals who will follow girls into toilets and commit sexual offences - rare but it happens. And whatever the legal status of the perpetrator the offence would have happened.

Firstly, the social and psychological framework that prevents males from entering female toilets is actually a protective factor currently. Because those who do not look like they belong in the female toilets can be kicked out, or security can be called. Self-ID would erode that layer of safeguarding, in my view, because I guarantee you that if someone can say they are "legally female" the fear of litigation would be an extra layer that prevents people from challenging the presence of male-bodied individuals in female-only spaces. The social ability to ask "hey, do you belong here?" is actually useful to protecting individuals within that space, in my opinion.
Secondly, there is a real difference between someone who is able to regularly access female spaces or someone who enters them once or twice "covertly" in a predatory manner. In this example, the perpetrator accessed female toilets at least twice, which makes me wonder whether they had been able to do so for a long time and gone unchallenged, which makes me wonder if there were other incidents that weren't reported. In crime there can be a tendency to "build up" to an offense - an escalating pushing of the boundaries until the offender commits their most serious assault. This is why the legal status of the offender is actually a relevant factor to consider, in my view.
Thirdly, if there is even a theoretical possible additional risk to females being preyed on by those who abuse our current systems then this needs to be looked at properly and discussed - not hidden away from view in strangely-worded articles. I would like some accurate statistics so that we could have a real understanding of whether the risks are hypothetical or real, and be able to really track changes.
Finally, saying "this would happen anyway" when it comes to a sex offender targeting two girls, aged 10 and 12, on two separate occasions in public single-sex toilets where they should be safe, is just not good enough. This is about safeguarding the most vulnerable. I find your attitude cavalier. If there is a potential loophole in our laws that makes it easier for offenders to normalize their presence in single-sex spaces in order to target such innocent victims, then I want to identify it and fix it.
What worries me even more is imagining (completely hypothetically) that the predator was in the toilets for a while, acting suspiciously, and other (adult) females noticed them but didn't say anything because they didn't want to challenge that person's presence there or be called transphobic. But if they had been able to speak up, perhaps these girls would have been safe in such a theoretical scenario.

Finally, saying "this would happen anyway" when it comes to a sex offender targeting two girls, aged 10 and 12, on two separate occasions in public single-sex toilets where they should be safe, is just not good enough. This is about safeguarding the most vulnerable

This!

There is no link with self-ID. If the perpetrator has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment then they would be allowed to use the toilets today (subject to exceptions which are unlikely to apply where there are cubicles). If the perpetrator doesn't then they can be prevented from using the toilets. Self-id does not change anything.

The point, Sarah, is that we need to highlight to the government that this is not good enough. And the law needs to be changed so that women's safety, privacy and dignity are better protected because there is a clear clash of rights here. This will take time and a culture shift. But public perception will help. Your complete disregard for the rights and feelings of women and girls helps.

If you are obviously male you should not be in female spaces. Third spaces should be the default option.

Finally, saying "this would happen anyway" when it comes to a sex offender targeting two girls, aged 10 and 12, on two separate occasions in public single-sex toilets where they should be safe, is just not good enough.

They're only girls, nobody important cares.

Okay, I've used that store.
Asda Halbeath in Dunfermline has much the same set up as most supermarket loos. Everyone enters via a single corridor, which then opens out to a vestibule with three separate doors - male, female and disabled toilets / rooms.

I've assumed, like many others, purely based on the report, that the accused is male. This is based on the language used and my assumption that this is pretty much always a male crime. I may be leaping to conclusions but I can't imagine it NOT being a male, bearing in mind the type of crime they are accused of and the ages of both the victims and the accused. Small girls may peep at older women out of curiosity, but 17 year old girls do not peep at younger girls...they've no need to. They've been there.

I also understand from reading the article that there is some form of developmental delay involved with the accused. It doesn't excuse the crime, as the person involved clearly understands that they did the wrong thing. They clearly understood, based on what the article said, that they would likely be facing an extremely hostile environment when they unlocked the cubicle door, hence their decision to "hide" until they were forced out by the security team. I think they probably judged that correctly, as I would indeed expect them to be in for a lamping once they came out. That sounds like someone who actually knew what they were doing.