Page 28 | Women’s privacy and dignity

Mrspenguinsschoolforfreaks · 2025-09-07T12:43:38+00:00

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?

Helleofabore · 11/09/2025 08:16

And this

Readers Note continued:

There is an archive version of the link to Allsopp's Bang to Rights below.
https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
History of Hate section - This is sparple. I cannot see any relevance - the MoJ statistics are not relevant to this equivalence at all. It is there for emotional manipulation.

Lying with Statistics - More false comparisons. And Allslop again misuses the the plight of black Americans and indigenous people from around the world falsely to further his political cause. I consider this racist because the situations are not comparable when you consider the leniency being shown.

Then he says:

"The argument above applies even if the statistics are technically “correct”, because it relies on decontextualising these numbers to ignore the centuries of systemic racism underpinning them.

“Lying with statistics” is a well-known phrase precisely because one can be dishonest without actually fabricating the numbers; decontextualising is just one of many deceptive techniques. We will explore more in the examples below (a mixture of prison, conviction and prosecution stats)."

No... I think it is clear though that Allsop is 'lying with this comparison'. But let's see in the next section, eh.

The “Swedish Study” section - not relevant because we are not discussing the Swedish study here.

"MoJ 2017: the proportion of sex offences" section

It brings up points made by a heavily invested male with a transgender identity who has no expertise in criminology and wrote yet another 'medium' article. These are the points made.

-that there might be more prisoner in UK prisons than known. So therefore the rates would be lower for the sex crimes.

-The claim that longer sentences 'skew' the data which is a flawed premise for invalidating the data because the same thing can be said for the male and female population too. Therefore there is like for like there. But they also then try to bring in this discrimination, when in fact, we can see there is leniency in giving custodial sentences. Even to those committing sexual offences.

-And that the proportions are 'meaningless' to draw conclusions about a population.

Well... um.... Gellman themselves did a set of calculations that does not show at all that male people with transgender identities have the same or lower rate of committing sex crimes than female people in the UK.

"According to Google, the UK’s adult population is 54 million, give or take some change. The best estimates of the trans population is just under 1%, with a more or less 50/50 split between genetic males and genetic females (I use these terms here to disambiguate the necessity to divide the adult population in half for the purpose of estimating trans vs cis population).

That makes around 270,000 trans women in the UK. I’m not going to consider trans kids here because…. that’s just creepy to even think about.
So we have 129 trans women out of 270,000 in prison. That’s 0.047% of the entire trans woman population in prison… at all.

76 are there for sex offences, so that’s 0.028% of the entire trans woman population in prison for sex offences.

Now let’s check that against the cis figures:
3812 cis women equals 0.014% of all cis women. 125 is 0.0005% of all cis women in prison for sex offences.
78781 cis men equals 0.2% of all cis men. 13234 is 0.049% of all cis men in prison for sex offences."

So... still not seeing why it is being said that male people with a transgender identity have the same risk profile or lower than female people in the UK.
Let's compare 0.028% vs 0.0005%.

Yep... still not even close. I mean, I guess they can be said to be both % less than 1%. But then so too are the %s for male people.

It would be safeguarding failure to change policies based on this.

Of course, the Census data shows 48,000 male people who declared they were female not 270,000. So, are those dismissing the MoJ data then saying that male people LIED on the Census? A crime?

Allsop again leverages in groups suffering systemic discrimination falsely at the end of this section as well.

Not seeing this article being relevant at all to showing that male people with transgender identities have the same or lower risk of committing sex crime than female people. Which is what needs to be shown to include that group into female single sex provisions.

Helleofabore · 11/09/2025 08:19

Readers note continued:

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
436 women charged with rape section - (This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

The 2015 spike in women’s prosecutions section - (This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

Exploiting census data - section

Wow! Allsop really is an MRA.

So, this starts off with female people getting more leniency and that there are up to 64K female paedophiles in the UK but that they don't get convicted or imprisoned. The old 'women do it too' fallacy.

And oh noes!!!! The graphic (shared by BlackCat and others) 'misgenders' these male people. Just another reason to invalidate the data apparently.

The data does not match exactly apparently. Allsop posts the figures:

"Despite being dated 2023, it uses the figure for sexual crimes of males (11,660) for June 2021 from the government data. But the figure used for women (103) does not match the government data for females, which says 119."

Oh noes.... look at that the figure for women was .... 16 women off. Imagine!
Then he talks about the graphic representation. (This is not relevant as far as I can see for invalidating official prison statistics. The issue is whether a group of male people still commit a particular group of crimes at the same rate or more or less than the general male population of the UK)

The Allsop says:
"To exaggerate the apparent crime rate, it also uses the smallest possible population estimate for trans women, only including those with a specified binary (man/woman) trans identity. Many binary trans people opted not to provide this information (and almost 3 million people did not answer the gender identity question at all). From the census numbers it appears very likely that there are at least twice as many trans women than the number used in the infographic — which would halve the incarceration rate."

So.... apparently trans people DID commit the crime of lying on the census. Well, I never!

A point to note is that in the data that I post, NB male people are not included in the numbers they are disaggregated.

The Allsop posts:
"Even setting that aside, what do these numbers mean in a practical & political context? Firstly, you are more likely to encounter a cis woman sex offender than a trans woman one — even using the heavily biased figures above. Secondly, 99.9% of trans women are innocent; none of this statistical scaremongering remotely justifies any restrictions on rights."

Does this sound like what this poster who keeps posting this article keeps on saying? I think so.

This fails the applicability test in several ways.

There are just as much chance that a male (aggregated to include those with transgender identities) person is not charged or convicted of a sex crime as any female sex offender. So in trying to make this argument that there is as much chance in sharing space with a female sex offender who has never been convicted, applies similarly to all male people.

Secondly, the issue is NOT just the risk of 'sharing the space'. The risk includes the issue where male bodies have physical advantages to 'overpower' female people. Safeguarding has never been about making sure 100% that someone is safe. It is about minimising the harm to as low a number as possible. Which is why we don't segregate between female people with a criminal past and female people without a criminal past in female single sex spaces. And vice versa for male spaces.

So, the risk includes the issue where male bodies have physical advantages to 'overpower' female people. And we have the studies that show that the reduction in male physical advantages does not remove much of that male physical advantage.

Also, there is more ways to abuse and harm a female person than sexually. And this also is considered in the safeguarding analysis.

And this also fails because it makes a ridiculous unfounded statement of 'Secondly, 99.9% of trans women are innocent; none of this statistical scaremongering remotely justifies any restrictions on rights."

Helleofabore · 11/09/2025 08:20

Readers note continued:

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
Crime and punishment section - apparently male people with transgender identities are more likely to be reported for rape than other male people.

And that is pretty much the crux of Allsop's argument.

That female people don't get convicted for all their sexual offences, but that this group of victimised male people do. Therefore, these prisoner statistics are invalid.

Because apparently there is no way that male people with transgender identities commit sexual offences that never get recorded, or convicted.

Based on no evidence at all.

And sounds rather like an MRA defence.

So... what the fuck is this article by Allsop supposed to be supporting again?

That Allsop is an MRA, has politically leveraged any group of people he can to make a false comparison of justice system victimisation, despite the leniency that has been shown to be given to the group he is defending? Yes, this article does show this.

That "male people with transgender identities have the same or lower risk of committing sex crime than female people"? No. It doesn't support this.

Remember:

For safeguarding policy to be created, risk needs to be considered for segregation. Male people have always posed a risk of harm to female people which is why they are all excluded once they reach the age of about 8 years old.

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.

Safeguarding of female people is not limited to potential sex crimes or violent crimes, it includes a wide range of abusive behaviour and actions. It also covers the fact that female people need privacy and dignity.

Arguing about crime rates does not change the full range of considerations at all.
If a sub-group of male people require their own special safeguarding policies, they need to address this themselves. It was never acceptable for that group of male people to access female provisions because of the harm it causes to female people.

By the way Howseitgoin, continue to post that article all you like, I will simply continue to post the posts explaining why it is not supporting what you seem to want it to support. It is great for new readers to see just why arguments that you and Allslop use are not relevant to safeguarding policy for female people.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 11/09/2025 08:21

Helleofabore · 11/09/2025 08:20

Readers note continued:

https://archive.ph/Lpi4w#selection-463.0-527.352

From Allsop
Crime and punishment section - apparently male people with transgender identities are more likely to be reported for rape than other male people.

And that is pretty much the crux of Allsop's argument.

That female people don't get convicted for all their sexual offences, but that this group of victimised male people do. Therefore, these prisoner statistics are invalid.

Because apparently there is no way that male people with transgender identities commit sexual offences that never get recorded, or convicted.

Based on no evidence at all.

And sounds rather like an MRA defence.

So... what the fuck is this article by Allsop supposed to be supporting again?

That Allsop is an MRA, has politically leveraged any group of people he can to make a false comparison of justice system victimisation, despite the leniency that has been shown to be given to the group he is defending? Yes, this article does show this.

That "male people with transgender identities have the same or lower risk of committing sex crime than female people"? No. It doesn't support this.

Remember:

For safeguarding policy to be created, risk needs to be considered for segregation. Male people have always posed a risk of harm to female people which is why they are all excluded once they reach the age of about 8 years old.

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.

Safeguarding of female people is not limited to potential sex crimes or violent crimes, it includes a wide range of abusive behaviour and actions. It also covers the fact that female people need privacy and dignity.

Arguing about crime rates does not change the full range of considerations at all.
If a sub-group of male people require their own special safeguarding policies, they need to address this themselves. It was never acceptable for that group of male people to access female provisions because of the harm it causes to female people.

By the way Howseitgoin, continue to post that article all you like, I will simply continue to post the posts explaining why it is not supporting what you seem to want it to support. It is great for new readers to see just why arguments that you and Allslop use are not relevant to safeguarding policy for female people.

Edited

If this were true, men wouldn't be falling over themselves to identify as trans the moment they're caught raping someone.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/09/2025 08:21