Please help me articulately debate sex-based spaces and homophobia

[RatinaMaze]

Please help me with some articulate points to debate this issue with my DH. He’s normally very liberal and open-minded but there is one area in which IMO his views are outdated and ridiculous but whenever I try to debate the issue with him, I just end up floundering.

The issue is about homosexuality in premier league football. DH believes it is understandable that there are no “out” footballers and cites the locker rooms, communal showers and team baths as a good reason for that – he thinks that it is a safeguarding issue and that straight players should not be forced into getting naked with gay players. He says that if he were in that position, he’d feel uncomfortable, wondering if someone was “checking him out”.

I don’t like this way of thinking as it assumes all gay men are predators and I feel uncomfortable with this viewpoint but DH has recently started countering this argument by asking why I feel so strongly against self-id and the erasure of women’s safe spaces. He points to the fact that I cancelled my gym membership after it was made clear that anyone can use the changing rooms (all communal) of their choice in accordance with their gender identity and argues that me not wanting a man in a space where I will be undressed, is exactly the same as him not wanting to share a similar space with a gay man and that it is double standards to claim otherwise. I’ve argued with him that this isn’t the same at all – I have no worries at all about sharing these spaces with lesbians, for example, and have made the point that women’s football manage to deal with openly gay players quite nicely. This point alone doesn’t seem to be enough though. I can’t quite articulate why the difference is based on biological sex, rather than sexual preference and why I feel so strongly about men/male bodies in women’s spaces even when I know logically that most individuals will not pose a threat, while not allowing him the same concerns about gay male bodies in his space.

Is it because I’m uncomfortable with the default assumption that the men’s locker room is, by default, a heterosexual space? Surely it should be a space for all male bodies?

There is, I think, also an interesting angle to this around men feeling vulnerable and not enjoying “being checked out” which is essentially the position that women have occupied since the dawn of time. Is this such a threat to their masculinity?

Also, is it really fair for me, as a woman, to tell men how they should feel about their spaces?

surely the issue is one of power. A male-bodied person in the women's changing room has more physical power (bigger body) and might have more social power (male socialization) than the female-bodied people in that space. And that is one reason why women might not want that person there.

A gay man in the men's changing room or a gay women in the women's changing room does not have that power imbalance. They have the same physical strength and probably less social power (if there is an undercurrent of homophobia).

I think there is a difference, but I can see why it is hard to articulate.

When women have men in their changing rooms, it isn't just being checked out - it's the combination of leering + power. The male gaze is not just being fancied by someone - it is being "checked out," by someone who feels entitled to do so, someone who feels less vulnerable than the person they are staring at and is therefore not embarrassed by leering, like it is their right to look at you that way. Straight men are not vulnerable in the gay-straight dynamic, the gay men are more likely to have been badly treated and feel vulnerable in a shared space. It is interesting that when men talk about being objectified by women, it is nearly always women in groups, hen nights etc and that is because they feel safer. Your DH probably doesn't realise how young women get this on an almost daily basis.

Does he understand that there are men who get off on women seeing their genitals when they don't want to? What does he think their motivation is - is it misogyny, power and humiliation? Does he think gay men feel similarly motivated to do that to straight people?

If you husband can understand the difference between white people claiming racism (prejudice) and racism (prejudice and power combined), he should be able to understand how similar power dynamics affect the male-female interactions.

It is also unlikely that the men have experienced the same level of sexual harassment and assault that women have, which makes them more nervous and needing their own space.

What would he think of gay men, who weren't footballers, demanding access to the premier league changing rooms - they even own the kit, so of course they should be allowed into the showers? Would he question their motives or feel uncomfortable? It's worth pointing out that this doesn't happen, gay men are not predatory in this way, but that there is a difference between someone who is there because they are meant to be (male and footballer) and someone demanding access who shouldn't be there. The demanding in itself puts the person in a different category.

this is partly my problem too @RatinaMaze - I found that question a bit tricky to answer because I just end up going round in circles but I think @parietal makes a good point on the social (and physical power). My DH is currently of the view that most of this is 'goading' on women's part (eg. Posie Parker's definition of woman poster being taken down, us arguing about male bodied people in single sex spaces - he thinks 'of course they shouldn't be let in' but thinks that the problem is so insignificant statistically that it will never affect us in real life in our safe little rural bubble, even if we visit London occasionally). He's even likened it to 'dipping your toes in a pool of piranhas, you are going to get bitten'. Obviously Titter is a cesspool of nastiness so anything I mention from there is instantly dismissed as 'searching for the fringe nuttiness'. He pretty much refuses to talk about it, occasionally he will sit quietly while I talk at him and then dismisses it as me getting too obsessed with this subject and giving 'too many examples' of my points.

I mentioned to him the other day about sharing Baroness Nicholson's Women's Rights petition on fb and he actually said 'oh is this your trans rights thing again' gahhh!!!!! Have I got a Victorian husband???? In all other ways he is lovely though - I am currently working on a short document to show him to get the message across once and for all.

Males are 49 times more likely to commit a sexual assault (98% of sexual assault vs 2% for women)
Homosexuals are not 49 times more likely to commit sexual assault than heterosexuals.

The basis for fear/uncomfortableness is different.

Lesbians in female spaces and gay men in male spaces is a much better comparison as all things are equal apart from sexual attraction.
Sexual attraction isn't a basis for violence in the way male sex is.

A crazy but more direct comparison would be if a lobby group started arguing a group of bigger, stronger predator (tigers?! bears?) who evolved the capacity to identify as human but who were 49 times more likely to assault males than other human males to be housed in male changing rooms because they wanted to.

Of course #notalltigers #notallbears

It sounds so crazy to imagine a group that oppresses males through violence and sexual assault and are bigger, stronger and more powerful and have set up society to benefit them at the expense of males, it's why it's sounds so bizarre to use a predator like a tiger but that's the reality of millennia for women.

It's about fear, isn't it? It goes without saying, of course, that most gay men do not want to behave in a predatory way in male changing rooms, they just want to get change their clothes like everyone else. But let's assume there are some predators among them- they would be afraid to act like predators in a male changing room even if they wanted to - the risk of social opprobium and even possible violence is too high.

Unfortunately predatory males who access female changing rooms are not afraid in the same way. Women are afraid of them and they know it.The risk of violence is basically nil. With self-ID women don't even have the right to challenge them, they don't have the right to summon security to get help. This gives women even more reason to be afraid and gives male predators even less to fear and tilts the balance of power even further in the predator's favour.

So basically if I read your op correctly, your husband acknowledges that male pattern predatory behaviour is real, but he doesn't think it's a good enough reason for women to want single sex spaces?

I think my response would be, 'Are you kidding me?'

Apologies if I'm missing something but, as far as I'm concerned, how men deal with this amongst themselves is not for women to solve. They need to sort it out for themselves and, until they do, women need spaces to themselves.

I don't think the line should be drawn at physical fear though? I wouldn't want to necessarily share a changing room with men even if I felt entirely safe with them. It's a decency/privacy thing? I am sure I have shared changing rooms with lesbians and never noticed, but I can't help thinking gay men might be more uncomfortable for straight men because of the nature of male sexuality, because it's more aggressive and visual and easily aroused. So it can impinge on your privacy even if you are not intimidated by it.

In addition to the above: point out to your dh: his concerns around gay males 'checking him out' is discomfort at feeling sexually vulnerable. It isn't something men are used to. Females feel like this all the time and the checking out bit is absolutely bloody everywhere. Except gay men assaulting straight males is very rare, while males escalating through harassment, intimidation, indecent exposure and full on sexual assault from groping through to rape.... happens daily all over the UK.

So ask him to think again about his dealing with his discomfort about the thought of a gay male in the room who may be looking at him in a sexual way while he's undressed, and then ask him to think of living in a reality where not only are gay men half the population but it's normal and downright acceptable for gay men to smirk, whistle, comment openly to him on the sexually appreciable bits of his bum and package, 'give us a smile darling', discuss loudly with mates in dh's hearing about 'giving him one', get huffy and downright threatening if dh dares to imply this is anything but jovial banter and a compliment, and that dh and most other men in the changing room had encountered from early childhood onwards, gay men copping a feel in passing, hand up the bum, groping, taking advantage of an isolated spot to grab a kiss or worse, to the point he'd learned never to be alone in an out of sight spot with one he didn't know....

Get him to imagine that. That's female reality with all males. Men are not used to feeling sexually vulnerable, they hate it. Females hate it too: there's just this weird, distorted belief that they should just accept it as their lot.

(Oh and ask him to think in this theoretical reality too: almost all gay males are taller than straight blokes, considerably stronger, and weigh on average about 3 stone heavier.)

Broomfondle, this is so useful:

A crazy but more direct comparison would be if a lobby group started arguing a group of bigger, stronger predator (tigers?! bears?) who evolved the capacity to identify as human but who were 49 times more likely to assault males than other human males to be housed in male changing rooms because they wanted to.

Does he fancy himself or what?!

Does he realise that people like him are the reason that sportsmen don’t generally come out?

I’m a sportsman, but rugby not football, so slightly less neanderthal like. Oddly enough I’ve never checked anyone out in a locker room, even if I did find someone attractive I wouldn’t because I’m not a perv. Just as if there was someone he found attractive he wouldn’t perv over them at the swimming pool/beach, or does he think its okay for him to be a perv?

I play for an inclusive team now, I used to play a much higher level of rugby, there are a fair few players who aren’t out publicly (including top level) because of people like your husband. I came across two players with similar views to your husband, they were both banned from the changing room/shower and hugely damaged their relationship with the rest of the team.

Rugby fans aren’t amazing, but they’re getting better, sadly football fans can in some cases be much worse. People who shame gay players no matter their sport are well arseholes.

If he’s feeling brave he can pop up to Yorkshire and tell all of Keegan Hirsts 6’5” muscled frame that he shouldn’t be an out sportsman.

Also, has he been in a locker room of a team lately? They’re all grabbing arses, hugging naked, grabbing knobs, pissing on peoples legs and all sorts of weird stuff. A ‘straight’ mans locker room is literally the ‘gayest’ place. Pop in our changing room (almost 100% gay) and weirdly we can shower and manage not to touch anyone elses knob or arse.

They’re two completely seperate issues.

Some really good points here - thank you! It's funny because DH is very liberal in every way but this. We both have gay friends (I hate when people say this and it sounds like such a cop out there but it is true) and whenever this subject comes up, I always ask him how Mike and Bob (not their real names) would feel if they heard his views, to which he always says that he knows this and is beating himself up about how the way he feels about this one situation contradicts his views in general. And this is precisely why I want to continue debating this with him - because there is a genuine chance at him changing his mind and seeing sense.

I really like the racism example from @LetsSplashMummy . He's very outspoken about BLM and regularly challenges racism so I think he'll understand the power dynamics when put in this way.

I should also have made clear in my OP that DH is GC and completely agrees with me on the issues of self-id and dangers to women's spaces. In many ways he's better at speaking up than I am. He was using this as an example of devil's advocate in the discussion about safety in these kinds of spaces. Sorry, that was a really important point which should have been made upfront.

This is precisely why this situation gets to me. He is one of the least bigoted people I know - until it comes to this one issue. It makes no sense to me.