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?

And astounding that it's on a mum's forum.

What do you mean by this?

No. It's a complex one that has very little to do with this issue. I've no real idea why you're trying to shoe horn it on, other than as deflection.

However it is an interesting topic and I would be interested in debating it further, but it definitely needs its own space. If you genuinely want to discuss it, then please start that thread.

No you revealed your hand that we suspected early on.

And you don't like it.

No, I’m not arguing for anything in particular and if you look back at my posts you’ll see that. I was just pointing out that safeguarding can indeed, as the pp pointed out, be ‘weaponised’ as an argument for imposing unfair rules, and we should be able to scrutinise arguments allegedly founded on safeguarding without being accused of raising ‘red flags’

OK, I will answer it.

No, I don't think the age of consent should be different for same sex partners.

I still don't get the relevance to this discussion though.

When the age of consent was different for same sex partners, that was discrimination. Safeguarding was used as a rationale for that discrimination, but without any real evidence.

Excluding trans identifying male people from women's toilets is discrimination which is justified for safeguarding reasons (among other reasons), but it is not discrimination on grounds of their transgender identity. It is discrimination on grounds of their sex. We all accept that keeping male people out of women's single sex spaces is justifiable discrimination for multiple good reasons. In fact, the exclusion of male people is the entire point of those spaces existing. So what's the issue?

Was there a link to the study?

Women are supposed to behave in a certain way and I don't like it when women don't behave in the way I think they should.

It's probably hateful too.

Yep

Incelsrus.com

Dear Reader

This from a poster who continued to said that the rape of a girl was not relevent to a discussion on why men should not be in womens single sex spaces.

Safeguarding is bad when one is trying to argue that male persons pose no risk to female persons and yet the crime data in the UK proves that to be untrue.

What on earth are you talking about?

Hahahaha.

Did you really just act all innocent?

You just made me laugh.

Also, is @Howseitgoin not attempting to argue that trans identifying male people should use women's spaces for their own safety? In other words, he is making a safeguarding argument for the benefit of trans identifying male people on the grounds that he believes (but has no evidence to prove) that they are unsafe in men's spaces.

WHY DO TRANS IDENTIFYING MALE ADULTS DESERVE SAFEGUARDING BUT NOT FEMALE CHILDREN?

innocent of what?

Denial ? Vitriol?

transowmen behave like other men
there is some evidence that they may be more sexually motivated than men in general and no evidence at all that they behave like women
but saying “no” to them is denial of what exactly?

oh I know - it’s more evidence that they are men - the arrogance and expectation that the world revolves sound them is much more common in men than women

we should be able to scrutinise arguments allegedly founded on safeguarding without being accused of raising ‘red flags’

You are able to scrutinise any argument you please, but you aren't able to prohibit other people from commenting on what the possible consequences of making that argument are.

Go ahead and spell out what safeguarding measures you think are being 'weaponised' and what those 'unfair' rules are.

They always reveal their contempt for the wrong sort of women.

Can you explain why you think trans identifying male people being excluded from spaces for female people is an "unfair rule"?

What is unfair about it?

“Yeah, I been on so many different & sometimes hostile forums & Iv'e never encountered such mob vitriol & denial.

And astounding that it's on a mum's forum. But I suspect many of these commenters don't have children & just have an irrational fear &/or hatred of men they are channeling against trans women under the guise of 'safe guarding'. 'It's the last straw…I suppose.

I was reading in a study that 'safe guarding' has long been weaponised for bigoted purposes.”

Well. This really is someone saying the bit that extreme transgender rights activists (those who want to prioritise gender over sex at all times) wish to keep quiet.

Imagine thinking that many of the women discussing safeguarding principles and how policies are formed are the people who are not aware of these safeguarding principles because they are actively involved as mothers. And thinking that mumsnet isn’t one of the best places to have these very conversations about safeguarding because then people can read about it in ways that are accessible to them.

And then imagine what kind of person believes that the many women on this forum for parents called Mumsnet have an “irrational fear &/or hatred of men”. That there is MRA / incel discussion points appearing on this feminism board.

It all falls into place though. That a poster who would post such things as in this post would also then claim “Iv'e never encountered such mob vitriol & denial.”

This is a poster who believed their first post on this board was acceptable to label discussions about single sex spaces as ‘anti-trans hysteria’.

This was the first paragraph

“Clearly 'you can't always tell' given harassment of CIS women who don't appear 'sufficiently feminine' is on the rise as a consequence of anti trans hysteria. Seems the private spaces for women cause has been more counterproductive to their safety.”

It is unsurprising that we now see this line of argument about how safeguarding has been weaponised.

Yep, AS shows they've never posted outside FWR, ever.

The issue is that, instead of just explaining why you disagree when someone says they think safeguarding concerns are being used as an excuse for something else, every time several people pile in to accuse the person of nefarious underhand motivations. It appears to be a tactic to shut them down.

"What? What did I do wrong?"

Ok then.

Yes that is the point.

People who want to open up a debate into the legitimacy of safeguarding will get that on a women's rights forum populated mainly by women many of whom are mothers.

What were you expecting? A welcoming party?

Did i say I thought that?

And yet you agree that there have been occasions when safeguarding has been used to justify discrimination? So why can we not openly debate these points without accusations being thrown around?

The age of consent argument is anyway more complex as it's tied up in attitudes towards anal sex and sex between males, as oppose to same-sex activity more widely. The changes in ages have to also be seen in the context of how the legislation developed over 100 or so years, as well as purely 'safeguarding'.

But yes, it's a distraction that has nothing to do with men in single-sex female-only spaces.