Does anyone actually fully support trans people in women's changing rooms and loos?

[bottomsup12]

Just curious really? I see a lot of aggressive stances (Owen Jones eg) pro this on twitter etc. I don't get it.
The only reason I can think of is that it's never actually happened to them and they imagine it will be fine but when it actually happens a few times they might start seeing sense?

For the men who are aggressively pro it I wonder how they would feel is women just started flooding into their changing rooms and bathrooms ?

Very well said.

Here is the glaring fault with your post here.

Under the EA2010, single sex spaces are considered legitimate discrimination. While you are here posting calling women who want single sex spaces transphobic and now fucking racists, you miss the point that racist discrimination is not legitimate. Having single sex spaces IS legitimate.

Not only that, but you have missed the glaringly obvious point that your position can be considered racist because inclusion of male people into female single sex spaces directly impacts the lives of women and girls from particular countries and religions.

I think you might need to consider your very own prejudices here.

Just going to repeat this request:

Can posters please provide the evidence that the risk of male people with a trans identity is lower than the rest of the male UK population for safeguarding. Because if you cannot provide this evidence, all you have is your own 'feelings' on this.

What is the specific differences between male people who have transitioned and all other male people that means that they can come into a female single sex space?

Please. Put the evidence up that convinced you that women and girls should accept some male people into their single sex spaces.

I am really hoping that someone can post something. I think that readers are beginning to suspect that all these pleas for inclusion are based only on emotional manipulation and not on evidence of lower risk of harm to women and girls. And maybe readers are asking themselves why this is?

Why are some women so keen on putting other women and girls into harms way when they seem to have the privilege on not needing female single sex spaces?

Owen Jones is that you? SNP is that you?

Incoherent comparison.

Yes. I have no problem with whatsoever.

Can’t believe this is even a debate. No one asked women if we were ok with our facilities to be opened up to all. It’s pretty outrageous the more you think about it.

No I don't, not at all!

Loos have cubicles so I don't care about that

I do. I once came out of a cubicle to find a man by the basins blocking my exit. I was scared. The fact he wasn’t in my cubicle was irrelevant. It transpired he’d come in by mistake, thinking it was the Men’s, but those seconds of terror were real.

I don’t want any male person in the Ladies - not men with long hair, not 95yr old men, not gay men, not men wearing dresses, etc. Good men stay out so bad men stand out.

Perhaps men should be less regressively homophobic and nasty and then all men would feel at ease in the Male toilets.

I imagine few of us have a problem with whatsoever...

I'm glad that you aren't teaching me grammar.

So we have the third spaces thing don't we?

Those who personally consent and have no worries about undressing or being vulnerable around men regardless of possible agenda - and great, I'm pleased you have that privilege and really hope men permit you to retain it for a lifetime - can use mixed sex spaces with people who would prefer not to use sex based spaces.

And everyone who does not consent, or is not able to use mixed sex spaces, can have a single sex space. Right?

Because obviously no one would be rotten enough to tell women to either submit themselves to men, or (if unlucky enough that they can't) enjoy their exclusion from society in punishment.

• Faux innocent. I know.

It's not my term. It's the term now used (at least in the context of discussions on genders beyond male and female) by the UK, France, USA, Canada...probably more:

For example in a UK government report:
Cisgender: Used in this report to refer to people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth – people who are not transgender.

I went to a gig a couple of weeks ago in a venue that I didn't realise had mixed sex toilets.

The set up was the usual men's rebadged as "urinals and cubicles" (so still the men's), and the women's rebadged "cubicles".

There was a queue (of course) and when I finally got to pee, the empty stall absolutely stank of the beery shit the man exiting had left behind. There were a further 2 men in the queue.

I asked DH who'd nipped into the "urinals and cubicles" for a slash if there had been a queue for the cubicles in the gents. No. So just a bunch of creepy men who clearly got off on having a shit in the women's toilets.

If someone wishes to identify as 'cis gender' personally (or NB or Goliath Gender or demi boi femme fluid or any other identity choice) that is up to them.

But without checking with each individual person, how do you know how they identify? How does this allow for the heretics and those who just don't choose to define themselves in the sense of identity politics? How does this fit with the right to be a sex realist in law and not to perform a belief not held?

This movement plays a lot with words. Like 'lesbian'. And 'woman'. And 'inclusion'. It's generally something to be aware of and not to thoughtlessly buy into in a way that enables a political agenda that has no mandate and is being imposed on non consenting others.

I do think that orgs who insist on using the term should use it properly.

It doesn't refer to a gender that aligns with a sex since these are two different things.

It refers to being happy with your societally imposed gender which rules out many women who don't identify as trans.

I don't have a gender and I didn't give my consent to being classified as cisgender. Just because someone decides to call me cisgender (as, over the years people have called me a cunt, a fat cow and various other things, some of them pleasant) doesn't mean that becomes an official or sanctioned way of referring to the majority of the population who aren't worshippers at the church of gender.

I am not cis because I certainly will not confirm to gender stereotypes. Yet I am not trans. I am just a woman thank you. I don't have to perform femininity to be female, just have large gametes.

No. I'm a teacher and some of the y7 girls were vehemently arguing against this in PHSE

And yet we are told that we are dinosaurs and dying out and the youngest generation is all fully supportive.

No.

Is a complete sentence.

I came to the conclusion a while ago that many TRAs and particularly allies have never set foot in a gym or leisure centre.

I used to use the big Virgin Active in our city. The changing room was huge - around 250 lockers from memory in the women’s changing area - maybe more.

The changing area could accommodate around 100 women at any time changing but only had 3 or 4 individual cubicles right near the entrance/ opposite side from the showers. I would go before work and it was very busy. I wouldn’t have time to queue for one of the cubicles. Nor would it have suited the gym to have half the communal space broken down to fit Individual cubicles. People signed up to that gym due to location and peak time activities (eg. exercise classes at 6am).

It’s much the same at all of the leisure centres I’ve used in the past ten years, though on a smaller scale. Businesses can fit more people in when using communal changing spaces.

I fully support third spaces. People can choose to queue for the few extra unisex cubicles/ family rooms or women in a hurry can continue to use the single SEX rooms as they’ve always done.

CountZacular I absolutely agree with this. Third spaces for those who don’t feel comfortable in the right-sex changing room, and for all the allies who are happy to provide validation/support. Of course, where this has been tried, the use of the third space has been minimal, whereas the women’s single-sex space (best ever so small, or ever so far away) is the one most women want to use. Got to wonder whether it is actually worth the investment…..

Katie Dolatowski sexually assaulted two children in toilets with cubicles. He grabbed one of his victims by her face and forced her into a cubicle where he sexually assaulted her. The other girl he filmed while she was sitting in a cubicle.

I have always wondered if those who don’t mind mixed sex toilets or even cubicles would be willing to sit at a table opposite these two girls and tell them the same to their faces:

“Despite what you experienced, I would do nothing to prevent it happening again.”

I believe that anyone who fully supports transwomen in women's toilets and changing rooms has not thought through the consequences - not just for themselves, but for all other women and girls who use those facilities. They are probably also unaware of cases where transwomen (and men, who now can't be kept out as easily as before) have taken advantage of this access to abuse/attack/photograph/flash at/leer at women.

Basically, why do we separate toilets and changing rooms by sex in the first place? And there's your answer.

This is plain nonsense.

Men did not used to have their perversions enabled by other people - if you said there was a man in the loos or the changing rooms you'd get support to get him out of there. But now you'd get called a bigot.

There are now plenty of examples of men, and/or transwomen, getting naked in women's spaces - and when the women complain, instead of being supported against these sex offenders, the women are told they are bigots and are gaslit by being told that the dick actually belongs to a woman.