Man Argues That Women Have No Right to Privacy in Changing Rooms

[UtopiaPlanitia]

A few months ago a teacher filmed a great conversation with his student, debating whether or not JK Rowling is transphobic, and it was very enlightening. He has a new video up where he discusses women's rights with a man who is a Democrat voter.

I swear to god that 'Democrat' man goes all around the houses and overcomplicates the issues to get out of saying that males shouldn't be allowed to use women's spaces or to compete in women's sports.

It's almost like this man doesn't see women as beings worthy of respect.

Towards the end he seemed to be saying there are three definitions of woman, the legal one, the social one, the biological one.

Law should be based on the biological one, on the basis that it is independently verifiable and unchanging.

Social definitions change over time and so do not make a sound basis for law and public policy.

That leaves people free to clothe themselves as they like, call themselves what they like, date as their preferences allow (among other consenting adults) but retains an independently verifiable, objective and unchanging definition on which to base law and public policy.

The US is so behind on all this and they can't even see it.

This is a very libertarian perspective, that everyone has the right to do what they want (as long as not actually injuring others) and it's all about personal autonomy and less state control. I can sort of see that someone with this worldview (well a man with it, who can't imagine not being top of a power dynamic and probably thinks being perved on is a compliment) would think people should have the right to go where they want. It's all about the freedom to do things, not about the freedom from things happening to them.

Therefore I do find it interesting, I think it is wrong but it is at least more consistent than people thinking there should be special treatment and rights for those with identities.

The flip side is that this worldview is less likely to force people to use different pronouns or stop women having abortions. It's very "you do you, none of my business."

Didn’t watch all of it as D man was getting on one of my last nerves but did he request anonymity?
If so, I think I can see why
What an ignorant twit- he wouldn’t see the point if it was enlarged and highlighted on a massive billboard

As soon as they have logged off pornhub, men forget about voyeurism and flashing.

He not only needs multiple definitions of woman and girl, but needs the law to ignore voyeurism for his logic to stand up.

Oh yeah, and they’re not just misogynists, either, a lot will jump to accuse others of this or that bigitry/-ism/phobia while completely blind to their own, just because they aim it at those who don’t conform to their neatly packaged and shop bought set of approved characteristics or demographics. Many remind me of the sort of deeply religious people who’ll happily do dreadful things in the name of their beliefs, secure in the knowledge that as they carefully adhere to the tenets of their faith they’re definitely still Good People and doing god’s work, like Magdalen laundry nuns, the Spanish Inquisition or the Taliban.

I only watched half the clip (as others said, great clip, but far too frustrating!) and all the focus was on a man exposing himself in a locker room. Maybe it was covered later, but no mention was made that the mother in question might not be too keen to get naked herself, or strip her child while an unknown male was watching. Why is this so hard to understand?

We can tell trans women are men, because other men defend them in a way that they would never never do for women, and prioritise their wants and happiness over the safety and dignity of women.

He's the definition of being so open minded that his brain has fallen out. He's arguing that voyeurism and indecent exposure will have to be normalised to accommodate these men.

He said there's no need for it to be made into a bigger issue than it is. I dont know if he means voyeurism and indecent exposure
are not bigs issue in themselves, or that they wouldn't happen that often?

That did come up later, but only fairly briefly.

There was a very interesting piece I read a while ago (unfortunately I have no recollection of where) about how 'freedoms' can be broadly divided into 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'.

IIRC the main thrust of the article was the way in which European law and political structures tend to lean towards 'freedom from' - hence more robust social security safety nets, universal health care etc; while the US is focused much more on 'freedom to' - American dream and all that.

But it's a definitely a division that can be quite enlightening when applied to other areas as well. I suspect male views of freedom tend to give much more weight to the 'to' - and particularly their own freedom to, rather than other people's freedom from.

This is a very libertarian perspective, that everyone has the right to do what they want (as long as not actually injuring others) and it's all about personal autonomy and less state control.

But for that argument to work, he has to believe that voyeurism and indecent exposure do no harm. That a man exposing himself to a 6 year old girl, or watching the 6 year old get undressed is not abuse.

What he's claiming is that if it is understood that men can be in the changing room, a girl can decide to be in there or not. It becomes her choice, or her mothers, to look at a man undressed or let a man see her undressing. He's changing the male crimes into a choice for little girls.

I think thats why libertarianism is a popular amongst men. It removes safeguarding under the pretence of liberty for everyone - men have the choice to go where ever they like and women have the choice to leave.

What you're referring to is 'positive liberty' (freedom to) and negative liberty (freedom from). The most well known elucidation of this is Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts of Liberty' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwoConceptsofLiberty) although I don't think he came up with it originally.

I disagree that American culture is based on positive liberty. Libertarianism, rugged individualism, and 'don't tread on me' are all manifestations of negative liberty.

A lot of things can be framed either way. For example 'freedom from regulations' is also 'freedom to run your business the way you want'. 'Women's freedom to change in private' or 'Women's freedom from perving men' (which of course infringes mens freedom to perve).

That's exactly it. Men are only on the left so they can have sex with more women. Men are on the right to own women.

You are so correct (I was going to say "right" but that might suggest something else).
And going back to the other point you've quoted, when I was 6 (or 7 or 8 or ......) there is NO WAY I would have undressed in front of a boy or man. As I remember it I was never very happy about undressing in front of another girl!!

It could very well be that, perhaps with an added touch of “I’m a progressive and, therefore, I’m on the right side of history so all my opinions are correct”.

This, and also, "I'm a good guy".

Safeguarding didn’t occur to him at all - it did occur to the interviewer but in an ill-defined form - and I’ve noticed that dismissive attitude towards safeguarding in a lot of people who support the position this man supports; it’s the Leftist version of “I’m alright Jack”. They don’t have any vulnerabilities (or don’t perceive themselves to have any) and so are happy to do away with single-sex spaces and services.

I think, as you say, the Libertarian aspect is also worth considering. Libertarian-Leftists are also of the opinion that boundaries are inherently discriminatory, or limiting to the freedom of the individual, and so doing away with boundaries (and thus the inherent safeguarding some boundaries provide) is a positive measure for them.

I was really shocked that he didn’t seem to have any instinctive desire to protect the child or the woman in this hypothetical scenario. I would hope that he could feel differently if encountering this situation in real life, and that he is only discarding their needs for the sake of winning his side of the argument, but I suspect that he is not capable of seeing this situation as a worrying lack of safeguarding.

Terrifying and excellent point!

I've just finished listening to andrew gold interview blair white.

They both concluded that its the straight men who look like their mothers who cause the problem, not the gay men who pass. White said that he'd use the womens toilet because he could go in unnoticed.

So on the surface, white understands the risk of assault, but seemed totally oblivious to his role in any deception, to the fact that he is removing women only spaces for his own convenience. And crucially, just because he knows he doesn't get any sexual thrill from seeing and being seen by women and girls, doesn't consider how women and girls feel.

I thought it was a similar vibe, to this interview, to be honest. Totally disregarding womens and girls, and focusing on the wants of the men.

(I dont recommend listening, they say nothing new. But maybe im salty because i look like someone's mother so fail Gold's test)

Not all left wingers subscribe to this nonsense and not all left political parties. The Communist Party e.g. does definitely not.

He did at least acknowledge (surprisingly) that there was a conflict of rights and that the right for a man to do whatever he wants, for example, to be in a women's changing room, conflicts with the right of women and girls to have access to a female only space.

But because he could only see this from the male point of view of freedom to do what he wants, he seemed to be struggling with a huge dilemma about whose rights should take precedence.

For him, a man's right to do whatever he wants, just because he wants to, is of equal importance as the right of women and girls to have a single sex space for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety. He can't see how preventing a man from doing something that he wants is a minor issue compared to the impact on the lives of women and girls which results from the removal of single sex spaces.

Yes, the attempts to make this about left v right are a product of American cultural imperialism.