Accessible Toilets

[WarOnWomen]

I've just seen this thread by Fair Play for Women regarding their stance on toilets. Maya F is also on the thread clarifying the issue.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1312062467191734273?s=21

They are saying that everyone should be comfortable choosing the toilets they want to without being forced to share with opposite sex. Yup. Trans people should also not have to share with people designated at birth. Yup, also agree. Have a mix sex category for people who don't mind and trans people. Sure.

They are saying these facilities already exist. Accessible toilets. This is where I feel lost and let down. These toilets are for disabled people. People worked hard to get these accessible toilets. I don't want my mum having to share these toilets with trans women, anymore than I want them in female spaces. It's just wrong. And don't disabled people have a say as part of the EA2010?

Please tell me I have the wrong end of the stick.

@Whatwouldscullydo

I'm asking how a lie can he enough for one thing but an admission or strong implication not enough for another

I'd question whether it's even a strong implication. Yes she said she had a bulge in her pants, you might expect that of a pre-op trans woman, and Yes she says she went to the bathroom with an erection first thing in the morning. There's no evidence anyone saw her and it's hardly a sexual assault to be in possession of a penis whilst having toast.

My advice stands regardless of the sex of the person depicted. Tell them not to do it if they don't want others to share their photos.

I agree, thats very good advice. But she looks barely older than a teenager and she's in a shelter for people with mental health problems. Sometimes people do things that aren't very sensible. Decent people would not use that as an excuse to sexually humiliate them online.

Decent people wouldn't violate boundries

There's a nasty implication that just her being in the shelter constitutes some kind of sexual menace. Well if that's how you feel take it up with the hostel. She's a kid, who presumably was on the streets, and will probably have been moved into the first place that had a spare bedspace for her by agency staff. It's not like you get a choice of where to live in those circumstances.

Why aren't trans activities campaigning fir refuges fir them. Specialist refuges. Just how women had to fir them.

Wouldn't that be better?

For a start it's not a refuge its a homeless shelter which in many cases in the UK are mixed sex anyway.

"it's hardly a sexual assault to be in possession of a penis whilst having toast."

A bit out of place in a female only refuge I would have thought though

Take it up with the hostel if you don't like it @334bu

Some people really have no idea how some folk have to live do they. No-one chooses to live in a shelter, single sex or otherwise, and most people who go into shelters don't get a say which one they end up in.

To end up on the street for women and girls must be horrendous and is often because they are fleeing violence, most often at the hands of men. To then find they are forced to share intimate space in a so called safe place with people who are male is an incredible cruelty.

@334bu

To end up on the street for women and girls must be horrendous and is often because they are fleeing violence, most often at the hands of men. To then find they are forced to share intimate space in a so called safe place with people who are male is an incredible cruelty.

If you mean mixed sex shelters in the UK then actually they are not all that unpopular. Women often have male partners and given you can be stuck in one for a year or more, and they sometimes have limited access for overnight guests, then they would rather be somewhere they can have their boyfriend to stay. When I was in the sector in no-one wanted to end up in the largest women only shelter because it was run by nuns with highly restrictive rules. Having said that there urgently needs to be more funding for accommodation of all types, including single sex projects which are vital for some women.

If you're talking about Vancouver then like I said, take it up with the hostel.

Just to check I am still following you jj, She's a kid refers to the male I have seen naked pictures of, who bragged about having hard ons in the women's section of a homeless shelter? Because that's an adult male, a man.

I can't stand this lying.

The hostels have no choice do they. Funding is withheld if they don't take
The self identified alongside biological women.

@testing987654321

Just to check I am still following you jj, She's a kid refers to the male I have seen naked pictures of, who bragged about having hard ons in the women's section of a homeless shelter? Because that's an adult male, a man.

I can't stand this lying.

Let's hope she is a legal adult eh given you're all quite happy to share about naked photos of her.

" including single sex projects which are vital for some women."

So you do believe that women need single sex provision of does that also include the ones with " dangly bits"?

There is no evidence this person assaulted anyone.

"This person" described themselves throwing pills at a 50 year old woman. That is assault.

@testing987654321

Just to check I am still following you jj, She's a kid refers to the male I have seen naked pictures of, who bragged about having hard ons in the women's section of a homeless shelter? Because that's an adult male, a man.

I can't stand this lying.

I know, even by TRA standards, that this is thread off the scale, but, it's extremely useful for people reading it.

This site has been instrumental in showing exactly why women do not want to have mixed sex spaces.

You don't even need to really be on the thread, or read it. Just one or two comments, here and there, are sufficient.

Let's hope she is a legal adult eh given you're all quite happy to share about naked photos of her.

Her? Women don't have penises.

According to 🥝they are 23 and have admitted to stabbing someone....

Obviously have no idea about the validity

Perhaps the most repellent part of it is that pic is no way necessary, even if you insisted on shaming her for what you've decided her vague tweets means. It's just and here's a pic of her naked we found on her Facebook for the lols. The worst of the gutter press don't even do shit like this to people charged with serious offences and yet you all seem to think sexually humiliating a teenager as punishment is all a bit of a laugh. So yes, I hope people are lurking and seeing this because out there, in the normal world, you look monstrous.

What's monstrous is forcing vulnerable women and girls to share intimate spaces with male strangers.

Women's boundaries are monstrous. We've heard it zillion times JJ. Monstrous, unkind, unfair, illegal, old fashioned.

A zillion times. It's tedious now.

Sharing intimate pictures of a young homeless person online without their consent whatever you think they've done has nothing to do with maintaining women's bounderies.

Perhaps the most repellent part of it is that pic is no way necessary,

That we can agree on. It should never have been made, and I wish I had never seen it.

[quote jj1968]@CharlieParley

In your scenario, the young woman has freely published her own intimate pictures on social media. Pictures that are in the public domain with the consent of the person depicted can be shared because this is not a criminal sexual offence under Section 33.

Are you sure her facebook page was public? Did you check? Did anyone bother to check, or check her age for that matter?

I have seen legal opinion by the way that if someone removed a photo from their social media then unless they have signed a release form it would become private for the purposes of this law. I believe it is as yet untested. So you're right, it's a borderline sexual offence. Maybe it wouldn't be technically illegal maybe it would. So that's okay then.[/quote]
You really don't understand how this law works, do you?

The only person who could ever be liable for prosecution under Section 33 is whoever shared those posts in the first place. Anyone else is not covered, because Section 33(8) makes it clear that positive intent to cause distress to the person depicted must be proven.

But I doubt even that person is liable under this law. Publishing an image of this nature to warn others of a dangerous person is a valid defence under the law.

Remember this law was brought in to deal with Revenge Porn, that is private photos of an intimate or revealing nature shared by an intimate partner or ex-partner without permission. That is simply not the case here.

So let's dial back the accusations that any woman who shares or links to the sexualised photos this male person took in a shelter for vulnerable women
is or could be committing a crime. They are not. And criticising the self-reportedly aggressive conduct of this male person is not ethically questionable or a sign that we are evil people out to bully, not even when the male person in question is vulnerable. Especially not in a thread that is about the need for female-only spaces. An aggressive male who enjoys crossing the boundaries of female people in what we would reasonably expect to be female-only spaces is naturally of interest in this context.

jj can you tell me in what circumstances, if any, women can exclude male born individuals? Without it being 'monstrous'?