Women’s privacy and dignity

[Mrspenguinsschoolforfreaks]

I’ve just been to my local leisure centre swimming pool and while I was in the changing rooms a woman walked in from the showers, fully naked. I averted my eyes, and she walked quite close past me in a way which to me (and I fully accept I may well have imagined it) felt a bit pointed. I felt vaguely uncomfortable and embarrassed in the same way I would have if a man had walked in naked.

My impression is that the vast majority of people on this forum believe that it is a fundamental breach of women’s privacy and dignity if people with male biology (whether cisgender men or trans women) share changing facilities with women. Yet they do not consider that it undermines a woman’s privacy or dignity to have to get changed in front of other women, or to see other women naked.

I understand that many women have had experiences with men’s exhibitionist or voyeuristic behaviour which makes them specifically uncomfortable being undressed around men, or being around men who are undressed. But I’ve often seen the argument on here that it equally undermines men’s privacy and dignity to have to share changing facilities with women.

So my question is, do you think privacy and dignity are not infringed by having to get changed in front of people of the same sex? If not, why not?

A naked male body in female only changing rooms is a real threat to women. A naked female body in female only changing rooms is merely potentially embarrassing to other women. I know that you are very well aware of the difference, OP.

Whilst demanding WE provide evidence in SeaLioning Behaviour?

Ah yes I get it.

Only women can sealion. Men know everything.

So its a new form of mansplaining using AI and Ad Hominum insult?

Gotcha.

By the way, should we highlight the 'retreat' from this

"Trans people are four times as likely to be assaulted in public bathrooms." from 27/08/2025 02:43

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5398721-womens-private-spaces?page=25&reply=146705173

to this:

"trans people being unable to use the toilet of their gender given that they are of a substantially increased risk of abuse by men" from Today 12:13 on page 8 on this thread.

Have we at least made progress on this false 'four times as likely to be assaulted' falsehood? I would personally consider this to be a sign of some kind of progress. Considering how often we see that 'four times' sound bite pop up .

Even Webberley uses it.

Yes, one of the Polis high head yins said exactly this when discussing a sudden precipitous lurch in the stats of 'hate crime' against people with the pc of 'gender reassignment'.

They were also affected by some trans activists organisations urging people to report every micro aggression and misgendering, iirc.

It remains the pc with the fewest 'hate incidents' recorded though, as I think race and disability receive far more incidents, and I expect if you look at the stats, the incidents will be qualitatively different. Most of the incidents recorded as NCHIs and hate crimes against pc of gender reassignment were internet based.

I dont' have time to dig out the references right now, will look later.

That'll learn me to RTFT.

*it won't. I show no signs of learning more patience, at all.

Can I just check if this article, featuring an image of this man, is supposed to convince us that men should be allowed to use women's spaces?

I don't want this man in the changing room with women and girls, thanks. Even if he's gone to all the trouble of wearing a pink bra and a micro mini skirt, and a wacky pair of great big platform boots.

He doesn't look like a woman, he looks like an exhibitionist.

Also correcting myself: sexual orientation is the next pc with the most recorded incidents, after race. Then disability. My mistake.

Tbf they are cut off jeans 🤷‍♀️ cant have you accused of misdressing now can we 🙈 and have the fashion police turn up at your door😬

Fair dos. The fashion police have me on speed dial, I have to admit.

So to recap:

We have now had numerous links in posts that show a group of people generally receive poor treatment in the UK, with no real comparisons to other vulnverable groups at all. Yet, there is no one denying that this group do receive abuse in their lives. At all.

This brings the question, what is the point of these generalised articles in the discussion that female people require female single sex spaces aways where male people are excluded? This question has not been answered at all.

Apparently, women are supposed to read that this group of male people are vulnerable and agree that this group of male people should be allowed to access female single sex spaces.

It doesn't work like this in real life at all. Because firstly, if a group of male people are more vulnerable than ALL other groups of male people (and there is no evidence that this is true) then alternative arrangements should be made for that group specifically. The solution is not to just give access to female single sex spaces. This is a complete logic fail.

Next, posting all those links is irrelevant. Just because that group of male people might be experiencing abuse doesn't mean that female people are not also receiving abuse. And it can be said with an eye on violence statistics and sexual assault statistics that all MALE people in general are the ones who are the main source of abuse towards female people. This is not controversial.

There is no evidence at all that the group of male people with transgender identities commit sex and violent crime at the same rate or less than the general female population in the UK. It would have to be proven that they did for even a logical argument to be had about that specific aspect of safeguarding.

However, safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people. There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

Finally, too many of these links posted are self selecting questionnaire results and are not based on complaints. Again, if female people in general were asked the same kind of questions and they answered the questions with the same level of political motivation, what would the results show in comparison?

The very fact that there is no measurable way to record the same types of crimes against women and girls makes this argument always asymmetrical. However, it is important to note that the argument behind the links is also irrelevant for the purpose of supporting why this group of male people should be able to access female single sex spaces.

For men who make these ridiculous demands, women are responsible for everything that makes men unhappy. They have a deep seated hatred of women for a variety of reasons, and making us responsible for all their perceived slights and problems neatly lets them off the hook for taking any responsibility for their own shortcomings. Why bother to acknowledge that they in fact might be responsible when they can shove the responsibility onto women? GI is just another way of men attempting to control women.

"And it can be said with an eye on violence statistics and sexual assault statistics that all MALE people in general are the ones who are the main source of abuse towards female people."

Not 'all' male people. I had the word groups in there and only did a partial delete.

This should be:

And it can be said with an eye on violence statistics and sexual assault statistics that MALE people in general are the ones who are the main source of abuse towards female people.

"GI is just another way of men attempting to control women."

I agree.

It is an attempt to control women and to utilise female people as resources for that group of male people's comfort: such as security, validation and convenience. It is only emotional reasoning behind the arguments to support this inclusion as we can see.

Goodness. The OP had better avoid my local leisure centre’s changing room, which after the popular aqua aerobics class 3x/week is filled with around three dozen nekkid women all jostling elbows with one another. No cubicles and a communal shower without curtains, just 3 showerheads at one end of the room.

I cycle to work and when I swim before work by pannier bags contain my work clothes & shoes, waterproofs, lunch, laptop, folders & files, books, swimkit. I only have space for a very small hand-towel, so walk naked from the shower to the changing bench. Completely unreasonable to expect us to cover up while changing.

This transwomen are in danger argument is just rank hypocrisy. One reason we want same sex spaces is for the same reason they allegedly do - to get away from violent and dangerous "men", or "assigned male at birth" or however you want to call them. The naming doesn't change reality.

They want to have their cake, eat it, and your cake too. Always.

Well maybe you should campaign to change that? It might be a better use of your time and energy than coming in here posting stuff info and making yourself look foolish look foolish. You can also start a campaign for men to accept some men wear dresses and men should accept that and not make them feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

Applause.

It's all about trying to reframe their completely unreasonable demands as a need.

It's not.

It's a self centred demand that doesn't give a shit about anyone else but themselves and when they don't get what they want they smear, lie, misrepresent and harass.

You only have to read the Glinner Threads to see it all laid out.

This is what it seems like from the posts just from this past 10days alone.

"It's all about trying to reframe their completely unreasonable demands as a need."

It is all about that emotional hook, isn't it?

Yet, when you cut through the emoting and all the fuckwittery, there is actually nothing that makes the destabilises the logical base that safeguarding is based on.

And this is despite all the mockery about safeguarding discussions too.

Safeguarding needs for female people do use sex based generalisations such as 'all male people carry the same risk of committing sex offences and violent offences and abuse of female people too, because there is absolutely no way to assess accurately who will and will not commit these offences.' There is also a need for privacy and dignity. Therefore, ALL male people above about 8 years old are treated the same.

Let's also remember that safeguarding principles that are applied at the level of sex category represent safety for male people with transgender identities as well.

It means that they know what society and the law expect from them. It also means that this group is being treated as they should, as in all this group is treated without discrimination. By discrimination, I refer to anyone having to judge who is transgender and who is not.

By excluding all male people, including male people with transgender identities, there is no group of male people being treated differently. No discrimination in that sense.

And not one person has to then arbitrate which male person is transgender and who is not. Or whether a male person with a transgender identity has a sex, violence or abuse offence recorded or reported against them, or have to do a check on their history.

It is really simple, no male person above about 8 years old is discriminated against compared to another male person about about 8 years old.

That is how safeguarding should work in accessing public single sex spaces.

@Howseitgoin You appear to be upset that posters are suggesting that you are male when you have asserted that you are female. This may be because you display the behavioral, cultural, or emotional traits typically associated with the male sex.

Writing style comes out as most likely male too. (Ran some through analysis to confirm).

Like logic & rationale?

From the peoples who are 'anti misogyny'….

oh chicken

if you believe what you display could in any universe be described as 'logic and rationale', well that's an interesting view you have of yourself there

good heavens.