They do not question the internal feelings of their friends and accept their self declared gender and would happily share a changing room even if they had a penis.
That's between friends. I went skinnydipping at night in our local swimming pool with a whole group of pals, male and female. We trusted each other and I had a choice.
The women in that video did not know the naked, fully intact male customer in the female-only area. They made a choice to be free from the presence of male adults in the female-only area. Fully expecting that choice to be respected. And rightly so.
So this situation does not compare to the situation of the young women you know consenting to being naked around their naked male friends. Because we are talking about the women who don't know these friends and consent is not transferable - you cannot agree to forego the privacy and dignity or the safety of other women.
I'm leaning towards acceptance. And I have been the victim of a male several times so I can hold the view that I would not be scared of my trans friend if we went swimming.
Me too. Does that acceptance include respecting the needs of women who cannot be in the presence of naked males for any reason, whether that is trauma, or privacy and dignity or culturally conservative backgrounds? Because in that spa, the way I understand acceptance and respecting the rights of others to also be accepted, I would happily sit in the mixed-sex area with a male transgender friend, leaving the female-only area to females.
Women, who after all don't know my friend and unlike me would have no way of knowing if that's a good one or a bad one. In the mixed-sex area that is. In the female-only area, a naked male adult clearly signals "bad one, beware". Because no male adult should be there. One who is however has already violated the boundaries and consent of the women and children in that area. In my view (and experience) that makes this a person not to be trusted.
That said, I do believe that as with anything there will always be a minority who are not genuine.
Safeguarding always, always looks to that minority. The rules- and law-abiding majority are not typically the reason why we need safeguarding measures.
You're looking at the best-case scenario - a friend you know and trust. Safeguarding must look at the worst case scenario in order to be effective - a person who is a danger, whether to friends or strangers.
Homosexuality used to be illegal, so things that were once not believed as possible are now mainstream and celebrated. You can't "see" gay any more than you can "see" gender identity.
Well, I don't need to see which sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes someone may choose to embody to discern whether to be wary of their presence in a female-only space when im naked. I can see sex, that's all that's necessary. And sex is so obvious in the vast majority of people, even a toddler can tell you.
Anyway, the conflation of the gay rights movement with today's trans rights movement is an attempt to conflate the underlying reason for opposition to equal rights for gay people with the underlying reason for opposition to self-id and the doctrine of gender identity.
The former, as Jane Clare Jones explains in her excellent article comparing both movements, was grounded in nothing more and nothing less than moral disgust.
She writes:
The use of the concept of ‘homophobia’ to dismiss objections to gay rights carried a ton of weight because the basis for a legitimate moral or political objection would be that something causes a harm, and in the case of gay rights there is a complete dearth of convincing arguments as to why homosexuality is a harm. It doesn’t harm homosexuals (whereas repressing it evidently does), and it doesn’t harm anyone else.
If you read anything here on FWR, you already know that moral disgust is not what motivates us to object to self-id and the doctrine of gender identity. We have a whole range of other reasons to object, both involving harm to women and girls as individuals and as a group and harm to transgender people.
As JCJ states:
But this is precisely where the ‘homophobia-transphobia’ parallel falls completely apart. Because in the case of the trans rights agenda there is actually a load of potential harms we might reasonably be worried about. Indeed, there is a kind of dull thudding irony to the fact that the very week Momentum decide to remind us that we’re all scaremongering bigots on the wrong side of history it also became public knowledge that Karen White – a trans woman on remand for rape – had been sent to a women’s jail where they sexually assaulted four inmates. (Who could have predicted it?)
The key thing to understand about trans rights activism is that, unlike gay rights activism, it is not just a movement seeking to ensure that trans people are not discriminated against. It is, rather, a movement committed to a fundamental reconceptualization of the very idea of what makes someone a man or a woman. In theory, this equally affects both men and women, but in practice, almost all the social pressure is coming from trans women towards the idea of ‘woman’ and the rights of women. And that’s because, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is being driven by male people who want something female people have, and that something, is, in fact, our very existence. Moreover, it turns out – who knew? – that male people have the inclination and social power to exert extreme coercive pressure on female people, and to court the sympathy and support of other males when they do so. (It’s almost as if sex is a thing and that it has something to do with power after all mmmm?).
You'll find that essay here: janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/
As PP noted - how the heck do we know who is dangerous or not- they don't wear a badge. But, there are lots of dangerous men around and the majority are already committing acts of violence in daily life without declaring a different gender
But some do. In increasing numbers, too, taking advantage of existing safeguarding measures being undermined or removed entirely. Furthermore, what other safeguarding measures and laws should we remove because people violate them anyway?
Drink driving laws?
Medicines licensing?
Door locks?
Criminal records checks?
The Equality Act?