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/

you are assuming the person is transgender/self ID rather than thinking a male went into a female toilet, that seems a strange assumption to make

I am not assuming anything of the sort, please dont suggest that I have.

The issue is the safety (as well as privacy and dignity) of girls and women in single sex spaces. As the two young girls safety was seriously compromised, it is vital that there is discusion about this.

It is a matter of child protection and safeguarding.

sarahAr of course there’s a link!

Let’s put two situations here. Let’s imagine that in both I’ve just been in that loo, and now I’ve washed my hands and I’m leaving. I know two young girls are in there alone.

1. Man approaches female toilet. I’m aware that two young girls and no one else is in there. He walks past me. I can either challenge him (gents are that way!) or I can turn round and go back in and make sure there’s another adult in, with the intention of calling for help if needed.

1. Man approaches female toilet. I’m aware that two young girls and no one else is in there. He walks past me. I’m aware that he’s actually allowed in, might self ID as a female and if I make a fuss I’ll be slapped on the wrists for transphobic behaviour.

In those two situations, no one in situation 2 can challenge. And many people in situation 2 would decide it’s not worth a talking to for transphobia. And so our young male offender (and please note I’m assuming they are just a male, I am not saying they’d be trans) just walks in.

How can you possibly say self ID has no impact?? It removes layer of protection a, which is that someone should t be there in he first place and it creates an unwillingness to step in and challenge.

If someone who appears to be male goes into a female toilet, women are told to assume they are transgender.
Until they reveal themselves as a sex pest at which point we are told to assume they are male.

Absolutely this!

One of the things that still leaves me baffled (and a little amused) about the toilets and changing rooms is how fast people have become okay with males in them. When DS1 was tiny there was an aibu on here where a mum was pissed off because she'd been swimming with her DD and DS and had taken them both into the women's to get changed, her DS was about 8 and some of the other women complained and said he should be in the men's. She was told almost unanimously that swbu and that it was ludicrous to take an 8yo boy into the women's changing room, it wasn't fair on the women and especially any young girls, they'd have made her remove him immediately, what about their daughters, it was disgraceful and pathetic to suggest he might be at risk in the men's, she was paranoid, it's awful to suggest men are dangerous etc etc.

This led to "what age is it okay for boys to be in with the women until?" and I think the answer was "about 6 or 7".

6/7 years later and most of mumsnet seems to be fine with adult men in the changing rooms with their daughters, and believes that those adult men would be at risk in the men's.

WTF happened?

but you are assuming the person is transgender/self ID rather than thinking a male went into a female toilet,

urban as I say above, if we leave any assumption other than they are made out of it it is STILL an issue. That Male is now allowed unchallenged in an area where previously social pressure would have meant that anyone could challenge them.

Once no one can challenge, that’s one layer of protection down. Self ID is a huge problem - because it lets any man in there. How is a girl supposed to know if that man will harm her? More to the point why is SHE now responsible for her safety?

Male, not made. Typo.

This led to "what age is it okay for boys to be in with the women until?" and I think the answer was "about 6 or 7".

6/7 years later and most of mumsnet seems to be fine with adult men in the changing rooms with their daughters, and believes that those adult men would be at risk in the men's.

YY. I used to belon to a gym that had a notice posted in the women's changing room about this. It even referred to 'social services child protection guidelines' as justification for saying no boy over the age of 6!

If I didn't know about transgender issues from MN, I wouldn't have understood the article

I might have thought it was really badly written and of course I'd have gleaned that a man was perving but the rest of it would have passed me by.

I really think the majority of women are just going to find themselves in a world where sex segregation doesn't exist any more and they couldn't object because they didn't know, but they will be told "you should have objected".

or I can turn round and go back in and make sure there’s another adult in, with the intention of calling for help if needed.

I was talking about this recently with a friend. Would female adults feel increasingly that they should be present? In the context of the crimes described in the article, it seems both likely and reasonable to think they might.

Yes, instead of transactivists, I vote we call them "anti woman activists" given that they are calling us "anti trans activists".
Agreed.
Also, an analogy. A secure work environment, say a nuclear power plant. Staff have all been security vetted before employment. More importantly they are all uniformed and wear ID on a lanyard. That is one if the physical security factors involved in the risk management of the plant, as well as other physical security like locking doors, access levels, CCTV, etc. Someone found where they shouldn't be is a potential threat, as the plant makes it clear through signage and training that IDs must be visible at all times. Visitors wear a pass and are escorted at all times.
Sound realistic? Now imagine a new, inclusive policy that scraps uniform and ID. People wander around the plant in tracksuits, Bermuda shorts or summer dresses. After a year of the new policy an intruder breaks into the plant and sabotages it. This causes a radiation leak that affects nearby residents. The subsequent investigation shows many staff saw him but not one person challenged him. Do you think the policy was wise? Also do you think a secure work environment would ever scrap access control and ID processes to increase their risk?
Butch lesbians are and look like women. Cross dressers* are and look like men. Do we really want a policy where the former is encouraged to leave and the latter to have access? Being physically and actually female is the ID and uniform that confers access rights. It's not a strict uniform, it comes in all sizes, but it exists. If we scrap it we've deliberately undermined our own security policy.

• intentional to highlight widening of trans umbrella

many staff saw him but not one person challenged him.

I’ve worked in secure labs. Challenge and ID was one of those things we HAD to do. No tailgating, even if you personally knew the person.

To do otherwise is inviting disaster. The biggest hurdle they had apparently was people’s feelings being hurt because someone wouldn’t let them through.

But security is more important so we had to do it.

^^ YY to ‘anti-woman activists’.
That’s what they are.

No tailgating, even if you personally knew the person... The biggest hurdle they had apparently was people’s feelings being hurt because someone wouldn’t let them through. But security is more important so we had to do it.
Exactly. I wonder again if attacking this financially would be useful. As in, making self-identifying environments produce a risk assessment and prove their public liability insurance wasn't affected by the change. Even a load of letter-writing and FoA requests would help, no?

That security aspect is very similar to the safeguarding present at nurseries. There were strict rules about not holding doors open for people, not tailgating, not lending your secure key to grandparents (they were issued only to parents - anyone else had to wait for staff to verify them and let them in). It was hard as the British say is to be polite and hold doors for people so it really went against socialisation - regular sternly wieder reminders would be sent out.
Anything which lowers safeguarding the way self-ID would is a monumentally stupid move. That socialisation to not make a fuss and assume that someone has the ‘right’ to use single sex spaces is what will lead to trouble. I have seen no convincing arguments from TRAs and their allies about why removing this layer is safeguarding won’t be a problem.

Yup. And ours was secure to the point where even the person who sat next to you in the office you didn’t let through. You had to go through (it was sort of an airlock) individually, wait, then they had to use their own card. It all logged who was where. It is weird at first.

(This all sounds very James Bond - I can assure you it wasn’t at all.)

Fuck's sake, how many more of these do there have to be before people realise what is going on? Why is everyone so fucking blinkered? I despair.

*disclaimer: am on the 🍷. May explain the sweary-ness.

Those security processes and physical barriers are there for a reason. Surely if a nursery removed all their physical security their insurance would be invalidated? So if my gym allow anyone in the women's changing rooms (say by allowing all cards/fobs/PINs to open the door), and I am attacked, would their public liability insurance cover my claim for damages?

"Defence solicitor Andrew Grieve said his client had been in the social care system from the age of three and had been actively engaging with mental health services"

thread with the toolkit and resources produced for professionals working with young people in the care system questioning their gender identity & specifically for the children & young people :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3324578-Vunerabilities-of-Looked-After-Children-Social-Work-CP-restricted-by-affirmation-requirement-Trans-Youth-in-Care-Toolkit

Tara Hewitt was an adviser to the toolkit & co founder & of TELI

Recent threads discussing TELI (founders /members also include Jess Bradley & Michelle Brewer) :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325882-WEP-conference-questions-for-panel-of-trans-rights-advocating-barristers

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325623-Jess-Bradley-a-government-advisor-on-womens-rights-suspended-by-NUS-over-indecent-blog-Part-iii

There are three vulnerable children in the article being discussed.

Two young girls were sexually assaulted in women's supermarket toilets.

A young person who has both Social Care and Mental Health service involement has been convicted.

It seems likely from the article that the young person is male but does not identify as a man.

The issues are Safeguarding, Child Protection and women's rights which should protect safety, dignity and privacy.

There is no hate and no attack, only concern.

Jesus wept, SarahAr, how many times do the women on here have to explain how the swiss cheese model applies to the loos?

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16401877.darren-senior-installed-cameras-in-toilets-at-richard-dunn-sports-centre-and-tong-school/

This guy had access to these spaces because he worked there. Imagine how much easier it would have been for him if he could access any female bathrooms whenever he liked with no challenges...

There were 121,187 sexual offences recorded by the police for year ending March 2017. The real number is far higher. Very few sexual offences are mentioned on FWR but funnily enough every sexual assault committed by a trans person or someone thought to be trans gets its own thread.

This is considered a women's safety issue not transphobia, but no other minority group is targeted in the same way.

sarahAr

If self ID goes through, any man can access these spaces. Any man. Not talking about transwomen, I’m talking about men.

Do you, or do you not, think the abolition of all single sex spaces is a risk? That’s all it comes down to.

There is willful ignorance of the potential issues that self-id will bring.

Transwomen claim they are at risk in the men's, yet they ignore the fact that the violent men they are afraid of can just follow them straight into the women's. That indicates that they are not afraid at all, they just want to be in with the women.

The minimisation and dismissal of women's concerns shows that they just don't care.

This is considered a women's safety issue not transphobia, but no other minority group is targeted in the same way.

Because it's only one issue here. It is a womens safety issue, but also women deserve privacy and dignity. It's not transphobia to wish for female spaces where we are vulnerable to be female only. It's extremely misogynistic to handwave our feelings away while insisting male feelings are paramount. Stop telling women what to think.