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?

All male people are more at risk in the company of males from violent crimes than of women. That's the nature of male violence. The logical conclusion is not to put some of them in with women. Indeed it's entirely illogical to, in one breath, acknowledge that males are as a group inherently more violent than females and then in the next suggest that the solution is to dilute the safety of all female spaces by adding some males.

The logic does not extend past 'aw, geez, those poor men, let the women look after them'.

It doesn't get as far as 'women are human beings who also deserve rights'.

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.

This is such a vacuous and dimwitted statement. At least you've acknowledged that the issue is that men are a higher risk.

You have not posted researched police data for the UK

You posted it for the USA. And even in the general USA there are rapes reported where male people with transgender identities have raped female people while accessing the female toilets.

Just because you posted a review with flawed conclusions from the USA, does not prove that there are no harms being done to female people with the inclusion of male people in female single sex spaces.

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.

Which leads to the question

How many additional women and girls being attacked or harmed in anyway in female single sex spaces are acceptable to you before we can expect to exclude ALL male people above the age of 8 years old?

My answer to this question is zero. What is yours?

@Mrspenguinsschoolforfreaks what expressions of fustrations by this ^ poster managed to elicit your sympathy?

I've seen that poster "laughing" at a number of comments about sexual abuse.

Which says it all about their motivation for being on a site where women speak.

It is rather stark isn't it.

Imagine supporting a poster who acts this way towards women who disagree with them. It is remarkable once you see the pattern. But the pattern was set last week, it was even clear with the very first post on this board.

There has been a very active display of misogyny on this thread. And yet, I wonder if the OP recognises it?

Didn't they also refer to sexual assaults as being 'successful sexual assaults'?

I suppose my experience was a successful sexual assault and a successful rape then.

You keep making this claim without proving that this subgroup of men are "safe".
Evidence would be for example that this subgroup of men have zero criminal convictions for VAWaG or for example that mixed sex spaces are safer for women than single sex female only spaces are.

Can someone tell me how I am supposed to know the difference between a man and a man who claims to be a trans woman?

Or is that one of those questions I’m not supposed to ask?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, etc...

Men you keep trying to break the sex class into
• Men
• This special subgroup of men
• Women

So lets look at the US school "bathroom"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/virginia-lawsuit-schools-ignoring-reported-sexual-assaults

Judges who ruled in favor of the Oakton student said the school system should not be entitled to “one free rape” before it can be held liable for its policies and procedures.
Alexandra Brodsky, a lawyer with Public Justice, which is representing the Oakton student, said she was especially concerned that a purportedly progressive school board in Fairfax county authorized pursuit of a legal strategy that, while it could help it win its case against the Oakton student, could set a dangerous precedent that weakens students’ protections from abuse.

Police data from where?
The US?

Where a father was arrested by the same police force alleged investigating the crime for speaking up pointing out that the HT knew about the sexual assault of a girl by a trans IDing male in the girls "bathroom" and hid it to push through the change to mixed sex "bathrooms"?

How are the US polices recording the crimes such that they can say with any level of confidence where a sexual assault took place?

The UK police have stated that they are unable to extract that data set from UK police data.

You definitely aren't supposed to ask that question. It will be ignored and you won't get an answer unless @howseitgoin fancies answering it since he is here? Thought not...

That poster will post a link about sex and try to waffle on about the people can be sexed by personality traits.

The ladybrain theory (for anyone doing bingo)

Which personality traits will never be defined

And the trite comments and DARVO and personal attacks will flow in the hope that readers will miss the fact that it is all a smoke screen to wedge males into what should be WSSS.

And they will laugh at my experiences and tell me I’m not expressing myself clearly enough for them, despite the fact that they’re ignoring what I say?

It is completely illogical.

It doesn’t matter how many hate crimes are committed against any group of male people, there is no logic at all for allowing that group special access to female single sex spaces. They are male people.

🌻🌻🌻🌻

He will not care about anything you say or about what happened to you.

The only objective is to wedge males ( non-sex offening and sex offending ) into any space that women have a right to.

As Arabella pointed out up thread, hurting and upsetting women is not just a bonus for these men’s rights activists, it’s often the main point, and that’s the dynamic I’m seeing here

We’re never going to persuade men like this that we’re people with legitimate feelings and rights. They hate us. That’s why we need the law to control them

What Bernard said. Just have a bit of fun with online MRAs, if you want. Or ignore. You won’t convince them women matter and they aren’t capable of being reasoned with.

Exactly. There is the sleight of hand. Of course they aren’t safe for women, they are literally just a group of men who claim that their feelings entitle them to be considered as women. Most people disagree.

So to recap:

We have now had the same 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 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.

As it happens, 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.

For me it is incredibly simple.

We keep ALL males out of women's spaces, for good reasons (based on women's needs, dignity, safeguarding).

Why on earth would we make an exception for one group of men? On what grounds?

Exactly @TheKeatingFive- basically a group of men have completely disregarded women’s rights to push in where they aren’t wanted, and now everyone is working backwards from that to justify why they are entitled to be included in women’s stuff. No. It’s not a negotiation and it’s not negated because women are too intimidated by this lobby of woman-hating men and their hangers on to express their lack of consent.

After seeing this past week, the number of people who have now done information requests on their own police records and discovered that they have 'hate crimes' recorded against their name when there has not been even any interviews, no notifications, anything, the validity of hate crime statistics has to be questioned. Officially.

Like in the last few pages of this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5406569-graham-linehan-arrested-on-arrival-at-heathrow-part-4?page=18

Individuals who are using them to support points have to be questioned robustly as to their validity. Because if a hate crime can be recorded on people's police records with no verification at all, nor any notification to the person having this put on their record, there is procedurally something very wrong. And these would be counting towards hate crime statistics.

Keeping in mind that this has also been going on for a few years now, it is no wonder that the number of hate crimes for that group are increasing some years.

When you have a hate crime being recorded because someone said someone was 'male' or a 'man', or used a dead name, on social media, it renders those statistics meaningless.

No one wins with this devaluation of data. If hate crime towards a group cannot be measured appropriately, the data is not fit for purpose.