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?

'The dog ate my homework'…

Still waiting.

Anyway, whether certain posters and the OP respect it or not, the majority of women consider it a violation of their privacy and dignity to use spaces where they are undressed or otherwise vulnerable with men. This obviously includes “trans women” because “trans women” are simply a group of men who claim that they “identify as” women. They share no common features apart from that.

Lack of sleep really messes with people’s brains too.

Do you do your homework before or after your tea?

Well indeed

I ain’t gonna be logicked into being comfortable getting undressed in the same room as a man I didn’t consent to being there

I know that I want and am entitled to privacy from men when I’m partially dressed or vulnerable and no amount of nuance, imaginary logic or ‘rationale’ will persuade me otherwise

Nope, not when they have been confirmed.

Still waiting for you to show us one incidence of a transwoman physically attacked in a toilet.

And still waiting for you to answer what does the female sex get out of having males in our safe single sex spaces.

No answer from you, as usual.

Indeed.

No evidence is a concession that you accept trans people are victims of violent hate crimes. That's progress. Well done!

You're not in 'OZ' (and we don't write it like that, that's how Americans say it, we say Aus), you're in America. Your yank terms and your use of American Merriam whatevers prove that.

Oh I know I know…..

No evidence is a concession that you accept transwomen are not at risk of any violent hate crimes.

Now answer the other questions asked of you.

This will be a great change.

Over the past month we have had not only Graham Lineham’s arrest and the court case that has caused discussion of change, but we also have now had the Brazilian and Danish justice systems clarifying that women shall not be convicted of hate crimes for misgendering.

We now have women in the UK checking their police records for crimes being recorded that they had no idea about based on misgendering and dead naming. And others reporting they have been interviewed by police too. All from reports involving a few of the same names.

If I remember there was also a Norwegian woman who was facing conviction but I think the charges have been dropped.

Sadly, Australia has women being reported and fined for misgendering and discussion about why the male people in question should not be included in single sex provisions, in such cases - sport and breastfeeding services.

Let’s not forget that stickering in Wales was used as a hate crime too.

This reporting over the past 5 years has been chilling to see. The chilling effect is clear. No wonder so many younger women will not say anything.

The difference is I already provided that evidence up thread multiple times & you know that not that there's any evidence you would ever accept given you deny police data of summons/charges,.

That you can't accept it is on you.

I too use ‘Aus’.

No, you provided zero evidence, and you know that.

I also asked you to show us one incidence of a transwoman physically attacked in a toilet.

And still waiting for you to answer what does the female sex get out of having males in our safe single sex spaces.

Silly! Women aren’t people-what’s good for us is an irrelevant question

You’ve summed it up perfectly. It’s sad, because on other areas of MN people are able to have interesting, genuine discussions on all sorts of topics, without the same group of users coming in every time to bully and hector and repeat the same catch phrases over and over

It’s still a no. Men, including “trans women” as men who identify as women are not welcome in our female only spaces and the highest court in the land agrees that they can and should be excluded if there is to be such thing as a single sex space.

As Gavin de Becker says in his seminal bestseller “The Gift of Fear”.

"'No' is a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you".

I dunno what’s so hard to process about ‘no, I do not consent’

it’s fairly creepy that you seem unable to deal with that to be honest

All I have to do have to prove the point is show they are in danger in public. And the police dat confirms it. This isn't rocket science.

What's astonishingly bizarre is this dogged denial of the obvious. It doesn't take a scholar to comprehend they trigger people. I mean look at this thread. You'd think there was a mass trans invasion when the reality is their minuscule population means people rarely come across them & yet you would think they were the number one existential threat. But according to those who fear them the most no one could be bother to lift a finger…

Full blown derangement syndrome is an understatement.

Whatever, the answer is still no.

Just a reminder from yesterday. But I think it still applies.

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 .

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?

And if they are based on complaints, there is no mechanism for female people to report hate crimes against them because there is no misogyny hate laws.

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.

What a surprise the OP who thinks women seeing others women naked in the female changing rooms are vouyers.

There's a reason why this isn't just let to slide on the feminist section of Mumsnet. Cos it's what MRA do.

Angry men and scolders.

Why am I not in the least surprised that you agree with that poster.

Perhaps you can answer this as that poster is unwilling to do so:

Why are you so desperate to force/coerce unconsenting women and girls into sharing toilet facilities and changing rooms with men and boys?