Man using women's toilets

[Amonkeyisnotacitykid]

https://x.com/ChrisFalconer16/status/1918316039630405641

I will be asking Aberdeen City Council for their clarification on this.

"Mirror primping" doesn't hold up the queue for the cubicles because women fix their makeup at the sinks.

Your "cool girl" "I'm not like the other girls" "I don't mirror-primp, so I'm better than you" rhetoric is a form of misogyny and a transparent attempt to blame women for long queues when the problem is insufficient cubicles.

women’s bathrooms & stalls.

Hah! Spot the wokescolding American.

Well, exactly…

Well quite. The footstampers can continue to footstamp but I suspect that organisations change their tune when they face legal challenges over their failure to comply with the law.

I can understand this completely. A trans woman just getting on with it is one thing. One making a massive flag sign and courting attention and putting it on social media is getting a kick out of it and I would not want to be around this person in an intimate space.

The majority of public loos aren't like construction site loos, so the risk from persistent low traffic is a red herring. In public spaces, women make up 51% of the population so the traffic is higher. The risk then comes from a man taking advantage of a temporary lull in traffic to sneak in à la Katie Dolatowski. It's then that the ability of the passerby to say "oi, that's the women's loos" becomes the protective factor, but that can only work if the passerby doesn't fear accusations of bigotry and transphobia.

The women's loo shouldn't be in a remote location. It should be near where you work. The problem that you are failing to recognise is that you are being subjected to sex discrimination by having to choose between risking your safety using a poorly-located women's loo and infringing on the men's privacy to use theirs.

When women are put at risk by having to trek to isolated remote toilets, this is a form of sexism and sex discrimination.

Also, my home toilet isn't a big room with cubicles in it.

Me too!

No. This prick makes a career out of, metaphorically, cocking his leg in any space designated female.

He's delusional at best, dangerous at worst and needs reining in.

The ladies loos of Old Aberdeen
Are where they want to be
In ladies loos in Aberdeen
They only want to pee.

(I know the Town House isn't in Old Aberdeen, before Scary uses that as a dead giveaway that I'm not local).

Molly is without doubt vulnerable. And a good example of how that doesn't preclude someone from being alarming, threatening, and potentially dangerous.

I do think some kind of intervention is in order - someone needs to tell him that he can't keep hanging about ladies loos and changing rooms, taking photos and posting them on the net. Or shouting in public about defecating on women, calling women 'bitches' and going on about 'fuck terfs'.

He's a risk to himself as well as potentially to women and children.

I notice that although Maggie Chapman applauded Molly's Dundee speech, she seems to be careful not to be seen standing in photos with him. Kirsty Blackman of the assumed XY chromosomes likewise didn't seem overly keen.

I have seen PPs mention that trans women are vulnerable men and need protection. If that is the case then that is for men to deal with- why are women supposed to get involved?!

It's always interesting to see an actual 'your toilet at home is gender neutral!!!' argument in the wild.

See also, plane toilets, portaloos and any other single occupancy toilet.

I was also surprised to see that aired. Totally irrelevant.

Maybe this could come under harassment of women under Scotland’s hate crime legislation since women will be a protected group?
These men intentionally doing this to harass women need to able to be charged with something

It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. The equivalent of arguing that because you see your partner naked you shouldn't object to a flasher in the street.

I absolutely cannot believe that we have a “your toilet at home” argument out in the wild in 2025! Also that it’s tagged onto this thread with this particular TW! Seriously, pick your battles.

One of my biggest gripes with the Hate Crime Act is that anything can count as a Hate Crime. The only criteria is the perception of the person reporting it.

There are no criteria, effectively. There are no threshholds.

Ooh, they've updated their SOP! Police Scotland now have this:

'Definition of Hate Incident

A hate incident is any report to police where it is perceived that the incident may involve malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice).

It is important to note that not all hate incidents perceived by the reporter as being motivated by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice), will meet the threshold for recording. All hate incidents will be assessed by police and a decision made on how to progress – hate crime, non-crime hate incident; no crime or assessed as other crime.

Definition of Hate Crime

Any crime motivated wholly or partly by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice) based on one or more actual or perceived characteristics.

Both of the following two principles must apply for a hate crime to be recorded –

• The actions of any alleged perpetrators must amount to a crime defined by law in Scotland Scottish Crime Recording Standard (SCRS) rules.
• There must be evidence that the crime was motivated by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice) towards a characteristic protected by legislation. Assessment of the offender’s behaviour before, during or after the incident will provide evidence of the malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice).

A person does not have to be a member of the characteristic group to be a victim of a hate crime.

Definition of a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI)

Any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporter, or any other person, that the incident was motivated wholly or partly by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice) based on one or more of their actual or perceived characteristics.
It is important to note that not all hate incidents perceived by the reporter, or any other person, as being motivated by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice) will meet the threshold for recording a NCHI.
When an incident is perceived by the reporter to be motivated by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice), then both of the following two principles must apply for the incident to be recorded as a NCHI:

• A reasonable person considers the report to be motivated by malice and ill will (hostility or prejudice) towards one or more characteristics protected within legislation.
• Recording has a specific policing purpose, for example:
• protecting life and property
• preserving order
• prevention and detection of crime
• apprehension and prosecution of offenders
• any duty or responsibility arising from common or statutory law.

A person does not have to be a member of the characteristic group to report a NCHI'

05/08/2024

That is looking more sensible. I'm slightly reassured.

In their eyes we exist only as functions for their use; Mummy and Emotional Support Animal being two.

As far as I'm concerned, any man invading a woman only space, ignoring those boundaries for his own gratification has ALREADY labelled himself as a threat and a predator.
Decent men don't do this.

I am trying to follow this thread but have no idea what scarymonster is on about. I am not sure whatever I say will make the poster think of anyone else’s safety.

Guess which EA protected characteristics didn't get protected by the new Scottish hate crime law?