In an ideal world...

[Whyistheteacold]

I'm not sure how to say this in a way that will make sense to others, so I hope what I am saying is clear! If not, please ask questions for clarification 😅 A year ago I was 100% on the TWAW side of thinking. I've followed a lot of the threads on this board and since having my own daughter, while I fully support transwomen and believe that if someone truly feels they were born in the wrong body they can and should be able to transition and have equal rights, I also understand and agree that women should be able to have their own private spaces without fear of being labeled a bigot. I feel that if someone genuinely identifies as a woman this should be allowed, but I also believe that women should be able to have a born woman examine them in a smear test for example. Largely because I care for the future safety of my daughter. And I hate that the word "woman" is slowly being cancelled in favour of offensive terms like "birthing body" or "bleeder." I hate that we are being reduced to our functions... I feel so conflicted and confused about protecting genuine transwomen, and also protecting the safety of women. So in an ideal world, how would you balance the rights of transwomen and the right to be a woman in a safe space in your opinions?

@EyesOpening

“I would worry about whether using disabled toilets is the right answer. My experience at uni with a friend who was in a wheelchair was that the only disabled toilet on campus was a 20 minute journey away from the lecture halls! Although I suppose Northampton must have considered this, and I would hope have more disabled toilets”.

I didn’t actually go in the Gender Neural toilets but from the outside, (and all three provisions I saw were next to each other) I assumed the area was as big as the men’s and ladies’, there was only one door to it and I don’t think it was just one toilet. The whole campus has nearly been rebuilt so I’m assuming they put quite a few in there as opposed to converting one accessible toilet to Gender Neutral

*Newly been rebuilt

Putting together people’s comments about women’s and disabled loos, I’ve realised how, even with equality laws, it’s the two groups seen as weakest whose rights get so easily thrown aside.

thinking I'm vaguely worried about who you've mixed me up with now!

On disabled facilities, once upon a time I'd have said that people with genuine intractable dysphoria meaning they can't use the men's without exacerbating psychological issues ought to use the disabled loos - because chronic mental health conditions can be disabling.

But now, given how the narrative and the numbers have changed, it would mean people who simply prefer not to use the men's for any reason, who don't have a relevant mh condition, appropriating disabled spaces. And that's really not on.

@TyroTerf

Giving me an alternative space would have robbed me of the opportunity to, essentially, give my head a wobble and realise they were actually being kind and friendly and the reason I felt weird was my problem in my head. It would have meant I never had those moments of eye contact and solidarity with other women who were baffled by the makeup&boys talk. In short, I would have lost the opportunity to learn through experience that the makeup&boys talk was something some women do, but plenty don't, and my womanhood is no more lessened than anyone else's by that not being my thing.

Me too. Only, I didn't understand that that unhappiness and lack of fit has any positive side. Now it makes sense. Thank you

Thanks Jelly and Dick for the feedback - it's good to know my experiences echo others', it's a clue that my analysis isn't completely batshit!

@JellySlice

Ay my local swimming pool there is a communal changing area with cubicles that people change in, nothing marked male or female, and a couple of rooms for family use. Seems to work fine.

It doesn't.

[[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk]] Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities, which make up less than half the total.

IIRC 97% of sexual assaults are committed by men, and oct 80% of their victims are female.

Again, notice a common theme?

I probably didn't describe it very well.

You walk in through a large double door, and then between the door and the swimming pool there's two rows of cubicles and three corridors (one on each side and one between the rows of cubicles. You head straight to a cubicle and all changing both before and after swimming takes place inside them. The exception being if you're a family, there are a couple of rooms off one of the corridors marked "family changing". There's no harrassment or voyeurism because there's nowhere that anybody is loitering or doing anything long enough in front of anyone else to do so. I suppose while in the corridor you can see people in their swimsuits, but you see that in the pool area anyway, surely? It's open and brightly lit and the atmosphere is "businesslike" - ie the only reason you're in the corridor is because you're going somewhere, either to the pool or to a cubicle, or on your way out. The corridors are visible from the pool area, with staff milling about, and people would notice immediately if someone was hanging around them for no good reason.

There are open showers next to the pool, and some single showers behind lockable doors for people who prefer. Toilets are all single cubicles.

I've never seen any kind of dodgy behaviour there (it may have happened I suppose, I don't know). I can't really see what would be gained in this situation from some of the real estate being designated female only and some male only. As it is, it has the advantage that gender identity makes no difference to anything.

@Jellyslice

"We have separate sex toilets in order to preserve peoples' sense of privacy and modesty from being an object of titillation for others,"

The main reason for separate sex facilities is to protect women from being assaulted by men.

Was that actually the main reason separate changing rooms were first instituted (which, as far as I know, is pretty much as old as civilisation)? I don't know, it's not something I've ever really thought about as it's just always been that way. I assumed the main reason was privacy and sexual modesty.

Would be interesting if there's any actual historical data on it.

@FifteenToes as a woman, I don't love the sound of that. Getting changed for swimming means getting naked in slippery circumstances with annoying clothes falling about and wet swimming costume snapping at one's ankles... And the bloody locks always break on the doors, or something. I wouldn't feel very relaxed knowing that there were men either side and strolling on past, and that a man might have used my cubicle earlier and done God knows what. I know the pool itself is mixed, but we're all underwater getting on with swimming there. The last time I ever went to a public swimming pool, the changing area was much as you describe, and it was the final nail in the coffin for me and swimming pools! I'm sure there are women made of sterner stuff than me, and I know swimming pool changing rooms aren't a gorgeous sensory experience at the best of times, but a mixed area feels more like something to be endured through gritted teeth than welcomed. For me, a woman.

[quote FifteenToes]**@Jellyslice

"We have separate sex toilets in order to preserve peoples' sense of privacy and modesty from being an object of titillation for others,"

The main reason for separate sex facilities is to protect women from being assaulted by men.

Was that actually the main reason separate changing rooms were first instituted (which, as far as I know, is pretty much as old as civilisation)? I don't know, it's not something I've ever really thought about as it's just always been that way. I assumed the main reason was privacy and sexual modesty.

Would be interesting if there's any actual historical data on it.[/quote]
Doesn't the notion of "privacy and sexual modesty", in these situations, basically track back to not wanting men to make unwarranted sexual impositions on women? It's not just an abstract ideal. Behind my wish for privacy and modesty is the palpable knowledge that a man can overpower me. It underscores everything.

@Daca

I agree, it’s a myth that gay men are no threat to women because of their sexuality. They are still men, physically more powerful. Your sexuality does not change your sex.

Personally, there have been quite a few times in my life when a gay man crossed a line and was physically intimidating with me or made a misogynist comment. You can enjoy dominating someone without being sexually interested.

I’d feel no less uncomfortable with a gay male stranger in an intimate space than with a straight male stranger. Gay males are not like women, I don’t understand why this homophobic myth persists.

OK that makes absolute sense, I get that.

FWIW I did only mean the point theoretically, since even if you did think it was OK to have gay men in female spaces you'd have no way of knowing or proving which men are gay anyway. I was only pointing out that the idea of protecting specifically sexual modesty from the unwanted interest of others, via single-sex changing spaces, assumes that everyone is straight and therefore interested in the opposite sex. It's a blunt instrument.

But your point about wide protection from maleness in general makes perfect sense.

We have separate sex toilets in order to preserve peoples' sense of privacy and modesty from being an object of titillation for others, on the assumption that letting biological men be present when biological women are undressing, and vice versa, is always and solely going to offend against that. But surely a gay man in a womens' changing room is going to be unaffected by women changing around him..

Not really,
We have single sex spaces mainly because women and men have different biological functions, for example men stand up to pee. Women have periods.

I do not want urinals in my toilets, neither do I want male people pissing on the seats.

Also, how the hell am I supposed to know whether a man in the women's space is gay or not?

"Oh hi, I'm alright, I'm gay"
Next thing he slides his smartphone under your changing cubicle to film you against your knowledge.

Just, no. No males, men, gay, straight, transwomen, in women's spaces. We have women only for good reason, and any males in them at all for any reason stops them being women only.

@ bourbonne

Fair enough. Using the changing cubicles is not a fantastic exxperience, even for me as a man. The floor's always wet and it always seems hard to keep one's clothes organised and dry. Yes, as you say it's just something you endure on the way to swimming.

I suppose I can only say I've been there with various female friends and family, and have various female friends who swim there regularly, and none have ever voiced any concern to me about it. Whether there are concerns I haven't heard, I can't possibly know.

^ ah Fifteen Toes I see you've replied to as similar post already...

There's no harrassment or voyeurism because there's nowhere that anybody is loitering or doing anything long enough in front of anyone else to do so.

Men place spycams are in the cubicles. Men inside one cubicle stick phones under or over the cubicle wall to film the person changing in the next cubicle. Men stick their heads over or under cubicle walls to look at the person changing in the next cubicle. Men leave cubicle doors unlocked so that people will walk in on them while they are undressed.

I wonder how often spycams are found in single sex spaces compared to mixed-sex spaces, and in male spaces compared to female spaces. I wonder what proportion of spycams in these spaces are placed by men?

"People" - women and children, for the most part.

I think a clearer use of 'sex' and 'gender' would be useful. The idea that many spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, rape shelters, homeless shelters) would be sex-segregrated, while some social spaces might be arranged based on gender, would be helpful.

As others have said, a widening of the 'men' box would be good. In so many cultures, 'third sex' options are there to account for men that are not sufficiently 'manly', and while this is often seen as an amazing liberal thing, it's a way of penalising and policing men.

OP, it's brilliant your daughter has you on her side.

FifteenToes, actually we haven’t had women's public toilets for that long. And we had to fight to get them. Lots of men didn’t want us to have them:

www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

There are currently campaigns for women to have single sex toilet facilities in parts of the developing world where as yet they have none - some parts of rural India for example, where women are at great risk of sexual assault when relieving themselves. In those places it is acknowledged that single sex toilets would be of enormous benefit to those women.

But some of the same organisations that are trying to bring that about “over there” are campaigning for women to lose our rights to single sex spaces over here.

On the subject of women’s toilet provision, this is a great watch if you’ve got the time:

And re those unisex changing villages, a lot of women feel very vulnerable in them for very good reason: men videoing over or under cubicles, for example, is more common than you apparently realise. Undressing in a cubicle with a flimsy lock, and big gaps above and below the door/sides, and men wandering around outside, is a situation many women feel uncomfortable in.

Those sexual assaults in unisex changing rooms referred to upthread would have been in exactly this type of place. I don’t think there are any unisex changing villages without the single cubicles.

@JellySlice

There's no harrassment or voyeurism because there's nowhere that anybody is loitering or doing anything long enough in front of anyone else to do so.

Men place spycams are in the cubicles. Men inside one cubicle stick phones under or over the cubicle wall to film the person changing in the next cubicle. Men stick their heads over or under cubicle walls to look at the person changing in the next cubicle. Men leave cubicle doors unlocked so that people will walk in on them while they are undressed.

I wonder how often spycams are found in single sex spaces compared to mixed-sex spaces, and in male spaces compared to female spaces. I wonder what proportion of spycams in these spaces are placed by men?

Ah yuk. We really are a horrible lot.

Now that you mention it I’ve had that happen to me as well - a man sticking his head under the cubicle divider to perv on me in a public toilet.

@aliasundercover

Hello *@TyroTerf*,

would you mind PMing me what Barracker said? I'd love to read it. Cheers

Would you mind PMing it to me too, TyroTerf?

Thanks.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark -

Fascinating! Thank you.

FifteenToes I appreciate your good faith engagement here and hope you know that nobody is saying that all men spy on/intimidate/harass/perve on/use violence against women given the opportunity. The problem is that a significant number of males do, and we don’t know in advance who.

I have male friends who I am happy to change with, who I trust and who I have known for a long time but that’s a different proposition. It’s not that I’m a delicate flower or particularly shy, I just don’t want any trouble. And if you’ve had a voyeur ‘spot’ you in a public park, and then follow you around exposing his erection, clearly getting off on your bewilderment and disgust, you really just want to be left alone. Males also sexually harass other males but that carries a much greater risk for the perpetrator, namely the risk of physical retribution which other males are more capable of than females. If I had been a big guy, I might have confronted the voyeur, pushed or hit him, I don’t know. The average strength difference is crucial.

Strength difference is a key factor in M on F sex crime vs M on M (or F on F) sex crime.

Also pertinent is that sex crimes eg voyeurism, flashing, spy camming are basically a precursor to the "ultimate" crime, of rape.

I mean, you have no idea if the flasher following you around actually wants to rape you or not, until it's too late. You've no idea if the bloke you've caught filming under the changing room curtain wants to rape you.
Bring that into the mix, then you've got unplanned pregnancy, you've got a whole new human being possibly brought into the world. The consequences of unplanned pregnancy are monumental for a woman.

From what I have gathered from conversations with men about the consequences of rape, men often don't/won't fathom the difference between M on M sex assault compared to M on F sex assault, they seem to say "it's just as bad" for men who are raped. "But women do it too" etc.
Sorry but It's not the same. It's not "as bad".

Women can't get a man or another woman pregnant. A man can't get another man pregnant either.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that women have this at the back of their minds, even on an unconscious level, that it's women who suffer more long term consequences of unwanted sex that men simply don't, so we'd rather just be able to navigate through life, secure in the knowledge that we don't ever need to get undressed or be in an enclosed space with men we don't know.

Daca no I certainly don't feel anyone's tarring all men with the same brush. I find this a really interesting discussion and it's changing my viewpoint, as I've tended to look at it from an analytical point of view, not taking into account the very pervasive and generalised sense of threat from stronger males that women have to live with.

I've had a few experiences giving me an inkling of what that's like (on the strength difference, I'd just point out that it is somewhat comparable when you're a boy feeling threatened by a larger and more experienced older man). But that's nothing like living with it all the time.

Yep @Gncq, it was an eye opener for me reading about the criminal career of Robert Napper. Went from voyeurism and flashing to serial rape, to the grisly murders of two women in front of their small children. I genuinely didn't realise that the "small stuff" that we're meant to shrug off is sometimes the beginning of a very dangerous pattern. But now I see it everywhere - it's in the back story of every rapist and murderer of women.