80 year old woman banned from pool for standing up for little girls

[Misstache]

This poor woman dedicated her life to defending women and girls. She heard a male voice while in the shower at her local pool, looked out and saw a TW changing near 4 or 5 little girls while staring at them. She stepped in, asked if the TW had a penis, and got banned and the pool staff threatened to call police on her. They lied and said she said all kinds of profane things. This is so disgusting. I feel so bad for her.

reduxx.info/senior-woman-banned-from-local-pool-after-expressing-concern-over-male-in-womens-washroom/

Indeed @TheWeeDonkey, how many times have women been told that they should trust their instincts, if something seems wrong don't ignore, seek help, do t let anyone make you do something you're uncomfortable with, don't let people push past your personal boundaries, your private parts are private.

We teach this message to all children then we're supposed to just ignore everything that we feel is wrong and accept a male seeing us naked because it's what they want.

As the woman allegedly clocked a male watching the little girls disrobe to go to the toilet, she saw a safeguarding situation. Now before these strange times, a chappie watching little girls undressing like that would have had the police called on him. Oddly, it is now apparently ok for males to do this and those who call it out are attacked by enablers and fellow travellers.

I wonder who the little girls have to protect their interests if the women who do so are banned for the premises.

Tip #1 when you suspect someone of indecent behaviour - don’t ask to see their genitals.

Tip #2 report the incident to a member of staff.

Tip #3 the existence of a trans woman legally present in women’s spaces is not an incident.

We women can't ask the man to leave our space for women - our space for women - because of the very real risk of the man's violent reaction to us, should we do so.

Men, all men, even those with a GRC saying they're women, can legally be excluded from women's spaces; but that particular law has never been enforced.

The Equality Act 2010, UK

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1

789. This paragraph replicates the effect of exceptions for occupational requirements in current discrimination legislation, and creates new exceptions in relation to disability and to replace the existing exceptions for occupational qualifications in relation to sex, gender reassignment, colour and nationality. It differs from the existing exceptions for occupational requirements in that it makes clear that the requirement must pursue a legitimate aim and that the burden of showing that the exception applies rests on those seeking to rely on it. Examples

The need for authenticity or realism might require someone of a particular race, sex or age for acting roles (for example, a black man to play the part of Othello) or modelling jobs.

Considerations of privacy or decency might require a public changing room or lavatory attendant to be of the same sex as those using the facilities.

An organisation for deaf people might legitimately employ a deaf person who uses British Sign Language to work as a counsellor to other deaf people whose first or preferred language is BSL.

Unemployed Muslim women might not take advantage of the services of an outreach worker to help them find employment if they were provided by a man.

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Except it was a man.
A strange man.
With a cock and balls.
In the same room as children in a state of undress.
Watching them.

I know in your mental world because he "says" he is a woman, that automatically appears to make this man no longer a threat, but in the REAL world, where men are responsible for 99% of sexual crimes against women and children, that means there is a safeguarding risk.

There was no "other woman" in the scenario.

Spin it all you want, you just sound as unhinged as the rest of the apologists.

You are advocating for a very dangerous world with no protection for women and girls.

A guy can be arrested for having naked child photographs on his computer, but all he has to do now is pop along to M&S, buy a swimsuit, and hey presto! Instant access to women and girls in real life. All protected and advocated for by the likes of you.

And anyone who dares to complain or even ask why there is a man in a space like this, is deemed the bigot, THEY are thrown out and the man is permitted to stay and carry on?

What a fucking world.

I believe no father should be so blasé about their young daughters above the age of entering school being watched getting changed by a male who is not their parent .

I also believe no father should actually be so blasé about any opposite sex adult watching their school aged child get dressed in a change room because their child deserves dignity.

A father allowing this to happen has lowered their child’s safety boundaries.

Then when you report the incident to a member of staff. Get banned from said establishment and get smeared as a bigot, a religious fundamentalist, a pervert and a prude who is obsessed with genitals.

1 she didn't.
2 she did and she got berated, police called on her and thrown out. If this is the reaction women get, how many women do you think will take the risk and talk to the staff. This is why 'inclusion' of male people in womens spaces means women are excluded.

1. Where this lady lives, it is true: women have no right to ask male people to leave spaces for female people. This is why women in the UK don't want laws passed that put women in the same situation as this woman. This is why in all countries who are planning or have passed laws that remove the basic human rights of female people as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, women are fighting against trans ideology and people like you who feel women don't count.

Your username says everything, really. And you just don’t get it, do you?

Do you have a daughter? If so, would you be happy for her to be in this scenario as a girl / young woman getting changed?

Weird take. Dh starts from the standpoint of utter suspicion of other men this odd naivety that none would have ill intentions is just bloody odd especially if you a father of daughters.

Summed up as "Women! If you see men with penises in places designed just for women, where you get undressed, say nothing because we only care about his right to do as he wants, and we don't care for your right to be or feel safe. And you're a bigot and a terf for attempting to safeguard children. Who gives a fuck about them anyway"?

You are advocating for a very dangerous world with no protection for women and girls.

This, as they say, appears to be a feature, not a bug.

Scenario:

Male in women's changing room, looking at women and girls.

What are women to do if they are uncomfortable?

As we well know, they are to look away, shut up and say nothing. Because the male knows better how they identify.

In my workplace we once had a sleazy male colleague who was known for his unsubtle leching over new, young female admin staff. I encountered him in the (tiny) kitchenette standing unnecesarily close to a new female employee at the sink, her body language screaming "go away". I've no idea what the correct HR procedure was (maybe I should have contacted DadJoke to ensure I didn't hurt a man's feelings with my response?) but I stayed in the doorway talking loudly to her, so she knew I had her back, and he knew I saw what he was doing. If I'd left to report it to someone else she would have remained vulnerable. That's what the brave woman in this scenario was doing- making her presence known and staying with the vulnerable.

It is interesting, really, that 'voyeurism' is a paraphilia and depends on the non-consensual participation of 'erotic targets'.

But it also depends, legally, on intent being proven. (UK law, not so sure about US).

A male in a changing room staring at women and girls is highly likely to be setting off lots of red flags.

A woman in a changing room staring at women and girls sounds far less dangerous, doesn't it?

In the situation of a male who identifies as a woman, we are now according to TWAW, placed in the second situation. With the added proviso that any accusations of said male, any suspicions raised or questions asked are going to be called bigotry and prejudice.

Gosh, that looks like an attractive loophole that any predatory male will be looking closely at, doesn't it?

Almost all paraphilias occur in males. 99% of sexual assault/rape is committed by males. There is a reason women's single sex spaces are safer for women.

Yes. I suspect if someone has no experience or understanding of the common-or-garden male predator they are unlikely to understand the run-throughs that any women, and especially any mother, has gone through many times in her head.

If one sees someone ogling children, DadJoke's suggestion is to remove oneself from the situation lest one be accused of 'doing it wrong' and report it to the staff. Most women's instant instinctive response is to intervene, to loudly raise the alarm, to place oneself between the person doing the ogling and the children. Yes, it places oneself at further risk, but there's not many women I know, not many mothers I know, that wouldn't do that in a heartbeat.

Women know from long and tiresome and bitter experience that there is very little point looking for recourse, help or support from 'authorities' - the police don't listen to us, I don't think some leisure centre worker is really likely to be able to leap into action like the Safeguarding Superhero DadJoke imagines them to be. Or, they may take action, but this would be only once the voyeur has already traumatised or alarmed said children.

Again we come back to the 'you can report it after it's happened' school of safeguarding, rather than the one most women prefer, which is 'stop it the fuck from happening at all, thanks'.

Agree, @PeriodBro

The other school of (non) safeguarding is: but it’s only ONE man doing this, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that he has only good intentions.

I would just like to know WHY?
WHY are you lot so damn KEEN for men to be allowed into women's spaces?
What's in it for the women and girls?

And what's in it for YOU?

There are people who pop up on these threads in almost a tag-team fashion to argue for the inclusion of men in women's spaces, but they never give an ACTUAL reason why they need to be there.

WHY do these men need to be in women's spaces, and why are you arguing for that? For a world where women and girls will instantly be made more vulnerable and at risk JUST BY THE INCLUSION OF A MALE IN THEIR SPACE AND THE MASSIVE LOOPHOLE THAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING that now allows predators of ANY description into these spaces, simply by virtue of declaring themselves "trans".
WHY is the privacy and dignity and simple wish of women and girls to dress/change in private away from men, not enough for you?
Why does a man's "right" to use that space override THEIR privacy?

I have NEVER seen you stand up for the females in these scenarios, only for the feelings of the male.

And I don't care what lovely swimsuit he was wearing.
Any little girls that gets raped or assaulted because of the laws YOU are advocating will be the collateral damage from "inclusion".

But hey, as long as the man in this scenario gets validation, inclusion, and his ego stroked, who gives a fuck right?

WHY are you lot so damn KEEN for men to be allowed into women's spaces?

I expect DadJoke is just delighted he will be able to wander around the womens changing rooms unchallenged.

You are advocating for a very dangerous world with no protection for women and girls.

This, as they say, appears to be a feature, not a bug.

Indeed.

Men want women to have even less protection from predatory and dangerous men than we already have. It's not hard to work out why.

I’m returning to thread to wholeheartedly recommend Meghan Murphy’s long interview with Julie on her Feminist Current podcast. Julie is terrific, so clearsighted and resolute. She discusses the local police’s failure to intervene at the protest and her 1-2-1 conversation with the chief of police about it. It’s worth a listen. They picked the woman when they threw her out of the pool. She comes across as savvy and highly principled. She’s not letting it drop.

And to answer a snarky point upthread about it being a private facility, Julie explains on the podcast it is owned by the local school board, leased to YMCA by the local council and managed by YMCA. So, a local community amenity built with taxpayer money which is now unusable by Julie, a local resident. There is no alternative in the area.

Julie gave another interview to Glinner:

(Sorry, not watched it yet, so can't comment!)

They obviously were not flashing their genitals or it would not have been necessary for this woman to ask what their genitals were.