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?

You're getting warmer…

Yes, there's this thing called statistical significance.

Now look up 'proportion'.

I don’t care about statistical significance.

I care about the laws where I live. And obeying them.

I note with some discombobulation that you seem to be insisting on pushing men into spaces that the law doesn’t allow them into. And furthermore, you wouldn’t respect my no. That is troubling to me. And says quite a bit about you.

'All men are men' doesn't tell me anything meaningful because different 'men' have different behaviours depending on age/class/culture/personal traits etc

But as I said, the law is king.

You are getting comments deleted. And as I have already said a week ago, I have not had posts deleted in my interactions with you.

So, this post is using dishonest tactics now to portray me as being the abusive one.

I have also commented extensively on your posted information about hate crimes. It is terrible that any group of people are being abused. However, your posting 'hate crime' information is not relevant to allowing male people into female single sex spaces.

No matter how many times you post that information, it doesn't change the fact that female people can have single sex spaces that legitimately exclude all male people above about 8 years old.

Please feel free to keep posting that information, and we shall just keep pointing out why it doesn't mean that any male person above about 8 years old should be accessing any female single sex space. Because that is how public forum works.

Just a reminder for those reading along:

The following harms are caused by the inclusion of male people into female single sex spaces. :

-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.

Posting information about hate crimes does not provide the basis for including male people in the access for female single sex spaces.

Hate crime data may open a discussion on what needs to be done to address the specific issues. But not support male access to female single sex spaces.

I'm sorry you can't follow.

Uh huh. It is statistically significant that male people commit 100% of rapes and over 98% of all sexual offences AND THAT IS WHY THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN WOMEN'S TOILETS AND CHANGING ROOMS.

Are you getting it yet?

You keep (conveniently) missing the relevant part to why trans women should have access & that's no proven harm to women.

Men even if they identify as trans women are still men.

I find this difficult to write due to cptsd and anxiety that spikes when I write about it, due to my experiences.

as I said, I was behind a wooden door and a man forced his way through that door and strangled me until I wet myself and passed out, and then he raped me.

I can’t believe you berated me in this way. Especially that you are a woman.

Trans women should not have access because they are men.

No. The 'culture' of Australians is to use the words toilet, loo, dunny, thunderbox, crapper. Bathroom is not part of the 'culture' of Australians describing a toilet.

Exactly. What do you not understand about this @Howseitgoin ?

fucking hell,of course there’s proven harm to women of allowing men into women’s spaces

google Katie Dolotowski, a man who sexually assaulted an 11 year old girl in a women’s toilet

You can say this as many times as you like, and it will still be untrue for two reasons.

1. There is proven harm to women.
2. Even in the absence of any proven harm to women, they should not have access to women's spaces BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN AND THE WHOLE POINT OF WOMEN'S SPACES IS THAT THERE ARE NO MEN IN THEM.

The Supreme Court explained this very clearly.

The presence of a trans identifying man in a women's space turns it into a mixed sex space and defeats the very purpose of it existing as a single sex space. You lose your entire rational and legal basis for excluding all other men. Because from women's point of view there is no difference between a man who identifies as a woman and a man who does not. They are both just men.

You keep lying and lying and lying. As you well know, transwomen have been proven to cause enormous harm to women. Physically, sexually and psychologically. They are males with penis and testicles. They have no place being in a female only safe single sex space unless you're a rapist and/or predator.

As I have said.

I obey the law. Why wouldn’t you?

I have also explained already, but will do so again, that I was behind a door trying to hold it shut as a man broke through using his shoulder, as he pushed through I stumbled back and he came at me, grabbed me by the throat, strangled me until I passed out. When I came round I had wet myself and he was pulling my trousers off, and he then raped me with a hand at my throat to keep me in place and stop me getting away. My head was up against the far wall and I couldn’t get up. My feet were going 19 to the dozen but I couldn’t get purchase on the floor.

so I’m sorry that you think you can patronise and correct me.

nice try. More than you didn’t break me.

you’re a disgrace for a woman to speak to me the way you do.

That's "statistically insignificant" apparently.

I would say it is more statistically significant than zero, which is the number of trans women known to have been sexually assaulted in men's toilets.

I keep writing and deleting the words ‘you absolute tool’ from my posts

man alive this guy’s an idiot

I sorry for your suffering but disagreeing with your rationale is not abuse.

I appreciate that men are a higher risk to women as the data shows but there's no evidence trans women are.

And in fact research shows in jurisdictions where bathroom laws allow trans women acces to women's bathrooms that there's no increase in reported crime.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

He's not a woman.

Trans women are men.

your apology is worthless. Because an apology without a change in behaviour is just manipulation.

False data. The evidence proves transwomen are the most DANGEROUS type of male there is and sexually offend 5 times higher than all other males.

Thank you for speaking up.

I am so sorry if some of my posts are upsetting for you as I have to walk a difficult line trying to inform people who are not aware of the dangers. My campaign started because I didn’t want anyone to go through what I had been thorough. Saving the young woman I helped save from toilets didn't traumatise me, but not saving someone from harm did. And the difference was the door design.

When the government didn’t take my design concerns on board and their consultants were recommending the opposite, I started to look where the safety evidence was for that design point and found there was none. That was a few years ago now. I want everyone to be safe but complete privacy has been prioritised over safety by many, including the Department of Education.

Post the hate crime data against women and against men

That way the data is clear and comparable.

Depends on the class of culture…