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 thing is that this poster makes absurd arguments that are utterly contrary to logic and don't hold for ten seconds when examined.

Fine. It's some random person on the internet (as are we all, of course).

What is far more concerning is that we have a potential deputy PM making this kind of statement:

'I have been asked about leaked EHRC guidance on trans women. This ignores the human rights of a vulnerable group made collateral damage in the culture wars. Labour must not leave this to protracted litigation, but legislate to protect everyone’s right to safety & dignity.'

Which is based on all of the weak, nonsensical fallacies that we've been subjected to from howsetgoing.

bsky.app/profile/bellribeiroaddy.bsky.social/post/3lyi6xnozie27

Sorry, is she saying that erasing women in law needs to be a legislative priority for Labour?

At the same time as having the word "feminist" in her profile?

Apparently so @MissScarletInTheBallroom

Do you mean hate crimes or non crime hate incidents?

Surely you can't get a criminal record without even being aware of it?

FFS.

She posted exactly the same nonsense on Twitter, where she got considerably more pushback, but ignored it all:

https://x.com/bellribeiroaddy/status/1965748399711326669

farkin 'ell

just when I cautiously thought it might be safe to vote labour again

who the hell are these loons?

Lincolnshire Police have told Harry Miller in a subject access request that he has the “hate crime” of stalking registered against his name, that he was not aware of.

https://x.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1966036246716661835

He says in a subsequent tweet:

The facts are these. In November, Harry was interviewed under caution by CID for the offence of misgendering Watson in an article for @TheCriticMag Somehow, this has now been escalated to the indictable offence of stalking, which carries a prison sentence.

I am going by this MissS, because I would have agreed with you prior to seeing it:

https://x.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1966036246716661835

Dear Mr Miller
Re: Subject Access Request - SAR/25/2928
I write in reply to your Subject Access Request in which you requested details of:
*14/10/2024 - 26/11/2024
I was investigated by DS Singh in November 2024. I wish to know if the incident was recorded as any of the following:

1. Recorded as a Non Crime Hate Incident
2. A Hate Crime
3. A Crime'

The occurrence logged under reference 23000670693 in which you were interviewed in relation to on the 20th November 2024, has been recorded as a hate crime. The crime (stalking involving serious alarm or distress) has prejudice flags attached.

Maybe your legal eyes will see something to explain why they have used 'hate crime' here instead of NCHI if it was not a 'hate crime'. I would welcome the distinction.

Also MissScarlet have you seen this:

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/being-targeted-by-lynsay-watson

' What my SAR said was that, against my name, the “crime” of “harassment” had been recorded with “outcome 15”, which when I looked it up means that a suspect had been identified and the victim supported police action, but the case was closed due to “evidential difficulties”.

What evidential difficulties?! The police have literally never been in touch with me about any of this. And they definitely have my address and indeed my phone number because in the past couple of years I have reported several crimes, all related to my work — the most recent of which concerned one Lynsay Watson. The only reason I even knew I had been recorded as committing a crime was because Watson was so cross that I hadn’t been prosecuted that he had applied for judicial review of that decision, and as an interested party I received the paperwork.

So what is my supposed crime? Like Graham, the core of Watson’s report concerned three tweets. Mine were about Freda Wallace, the trans-identifying man I was on a panel with nearly two years ago at the Institute of Economic Affairs. '

I am reading this, and even though it was closed, 'evidential difficulties' is not saying 'no evidence found to support this complaint at all'. I would think that the coding of this records may need to be refined in light of the number of vexatious complaints that are happening now.

Going back to the original topic for a minute.

I’m lucky in that at my leisure centre there are 4 cubicles (in addition to toilets) and there has always been one free for me to change in when I came out of the pool. But I know that’s only the case because most women change in the communal area.

@Mrspenguinsschoolforfreaks I appreciate you have said you are equally uncomfortable seeing naked men and women changing. Which is unusual, but I can understand the background as you've experienced homophobia.

It occured to me that if there was a transwoman aka a biological male in the communal women's room you most likely would no longer be able to use these cubicles easily.

Many of the women who are comfortable changing with women will not want to change in front of a biological man. We even had a poster here where there was a massive queue for women's changing in a similar scenario!

In my London leisure centre there's simply no space or to money to replace the communal changing with cubicles. You would need 40 per sex maybe for peak times instead of two rooms.

In my gym there would also be the safety disadvantages explained by keeptoiletssafe and a couple of others exemplified. At quiet times there are particularly vulnerable users: exercise referral with heart problems and juniors gyming after school.

I can't see transwomen having any issues in the men's where I am. Many gyms are changing their policies and I saw one transwomen post her great experience in the men's as a kinda gotcha, assuming we want them erased rather than privacy.

That said, if some wanted one and agreed to use it, I wouldn't mind a room converted with a fob entrance for transgender people who neither options actually works for them. For all I know there might be one already.

Which brings me to my question would you be willing to give up general private cubicles for those specifically for transgenders? In many cases that's what organisations are doing, evidently many are space constrained.

Sorry for long post...

Trawling through Bluesky the current narrative is there are lots of GC paedos and that the movement has a problem with them which no one says much about because they are above criticism because they are female.

Basically it's a list of women that the transcels hate.

But it's fascinating to see the rise of these type of narratives

The rapist lesbians. The voyeurist woman in the changing room. The flashing woman.

All bullshit. All very much Incel style nonsense.

IncelsRus have a range of delusional beliefs about women - sometimes even showcased on this board 😡

Copying and pasting very relevant post on the Glinner thread from @yourhairiswinterfire

“From a poster, Sidsy, on X:
'As @HJoyceGender has also found out, Home Office Crime Recording Rules obligate police forces to record a "crime" (not just a NCHI) purely on the basis of victim perception - even when the case is closed as the allegation cannot be proven. So when you read about the "increase in hate crime", this is based not on charges/convictions but simply on the number of crimes recorded. This system is being abused and the "data" is not fit for purpose.'
https://x.com/GrumpyOW/status/1966109043702808655
The rules say:
-The Crime Recording Rules also promote a victim-oriented approach to crime recording. This means that a victim’s belief that a crime has occurred is, in most cases, enough to justify its recording as a crime.
-The rules place an obligation on the police to accept what the victim says unless there is “credible evidence to the contrary.” So the following reasons aren’t enough to justify not recording a crime:
the victim declines to give personal details;the victim doesn’t want to take the matter further; orthe allegation can’t be proven.”

the current narrative is there are lots of GC paedos

People deeply invested in blocking healthy children's puberty and creating a class of people over the age of consent but with the minds and bodies of children say what?

So all those “hate crimes”, eh.

Who'da thunk it

Fucksake.

That doesn't even begin to touch the surface of it either.

Would that the police had done any of that when I reported my rape.

The thing is, I don't believe this is a new trend.

I think this trend has been around for a few years and will have been included in those 'hate crimes' that Howsa keeps posting. Remember that the CPS did a press release that included a wife 'not accepting of their spouse's gender' as being domestic abuse.

https://archive.ph/JAegv

How easy is it then to tack on a 'hate crime' to this domestic abuse?

Same too for stickering crimes.

While there has been a flurry of malign reporting due to this 3 or 4 people, I don't believe it is new or isolated.

What is also clear, is that looking back at all the links to 'hate crime' in the UK that Howse has posted, those 'hate crimes' thankfully are not restricted to violence either. It 'includes' violence but the numbers also include all other 'hate crimes'.

My point exactly, that Howse’s stats are based on unreliable reports.

I have looked back at just what we are supposed to have missed in today's assertions that the information was all posted yesterday.

The links that howse posted yesterday and today about hate crime include this:

The Guardian "Record rise in hate crimes against transgender people reported in England and Wales" Thu 5 Oct 2023

which includes this "Increase of 11% in year ending March 2023 may be due to comments in media and by politicians, says Home Office".

https://archive.ph/WtKLd

Which relates to this data (and a link was also posted - meaning two links to the very same data)

Hate crime, England and Wales, 2022 to 2023 second edition
Updated 2 November 2023

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023

This above is the source for the 11% increase

"sexual orientation hate crimes fell by 6%, to 24,102 offences, while transgender hate crimes increased by 11%, to 4,732 offences"

and

"Transgender identity hate crimes rose by 11% (from 4,262 to 4,732) over the same period, the highest number since the time series began in the year ending March 2012. Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences, or more awareness in the police in the identification and recording of these crimes."

Notice it is very open to what those hate crimes might be. Just (as has been pointed out by others) Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ .

And also worth noting that the increase in raw numbers is 470.

Violence against the person is separated into a chart at figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Percentage of selected offences resulting in charge/summons, by hate crime strand, offences recorded in the year ending March 2023, England and Wales, 30 forces

The percentage there was rounded up to 2% (ie. less than 2%). This is compared to Race and Sexual orientation being 6% of the offences being for violence against the person. Religion was 5%. Disability was 1%.

This is the only attempt to break this data into violent crimes. Public order offences registered against transgender people was 3% and criminal damage and arson was also 3%.

This is good. Very little 'violence' was charged/summoned. This gets even clearer when you look at the definition for "violence against the person"

From this resource that explains this:

https://www.psni.police.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/Police%20Recorded%20Crime%20User%20Guide.pdf

"Much of the violence against the person increase resulted from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury and offences of harassment (again with no injury)."

However, lucky for us there is a very detailed listing of what is considered under this category on page 24 of that PDF. I think that it is very clear that 'Violence against the person' is not limited to physical violence at all.

-start-

VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON

Violence against the person is grouped into five high-level categories – Homicide, Death or serious injury by
unlawful driving, Violence with injury, Violence without injury and Stalking and Harassment.

Homicide
1 Murder
4.1 Manslaughter
4.10 Corporate manslaughter
Where an organisation is deemed responsible for a person’s death. This offence differs from the basic
HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and is only recorded once an inquest
concludes with a verdict of unlawful killing or the PPS authorise a charge (or direct that it is not in the
public interest to do so).

4.2 Infanticide
Applied to infants under 12 months killed by the mother while of disturbed mind.

Death or serious injury caused by unlawful driving
These offences differ from the basic HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and are
only recorded once the investigation confirms the offence is made out, ie a person is charged or PPS
recommend prosecution.
4.4 Causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving
4.6 Causing death or serious injury by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
4.8 Causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving
4.9 Causing death or serious injury by driving: unlicensed drivers etc
37.1 Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

Violence with injury
2 Attempted murder
4.3 Intentional destruction of viable unborn child
4.7 Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person
5D Assault with intent to cause serious harm
Includes offences of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and wounding with intent. These offences
are recorded where there is clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to inflict serious bodily harm regardless
of level of injury sustained.
5E Endangering life
This classification is additionally split within PSNI to provide a data series for explosives offences and
firearms/ammunition offences.
8N Assault with injury
This classification is further split:
Grievous bodily harm or Wounding - where injury may result in permanent disability; more than minor
permanent disfigurement; broken bones; fractured skull; compound fractures; substantial loss of
blood; internal injury; lengthy treatment or serious psychiatric injury (based on expert evidence); and
shock (when accompanied by expert psychological evidence)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH) – injuries ranging from grazes, scratches and
reddening of the skin to simple broken nose or broken finger. Also includes non-visible injury causing
more than a passing moment of pain or discomfort which has an adverse impact on the victim.
Poisoning to aggrieve
Non-fatal strangulation - The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland)
2022 created the offence of ‘Non-fatal strangulation’, recording commenced 26th June 2023.
8P Racially or religiously-aggravated assault with injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 8N Assault with
injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8S Assault with injury on a constable
Where a police officer was the victim of GBH/wounding with intent, GBH, Wounding or AOABH in the
course of their duty.
8T Assault with injury on an emergency worker (other than a constable)
Within Northern Ireland these offences are classified to 8N Assault with injury (where the injury is minor)
and 105A Assault without injury (where no injury has been sustained).24Violence without injury
3A Conspiracy to murder
3B Threats to kill
Where an individual fears that the offender’s threat is real and may be carried out.
11A Cruelty to children/young persons
13 Child abduction
14 Procuring illegal abortion
36 Kidnapping
104 Assault without injury on a constable
Where, in the course of their duty, a police officer was the victim of an assault where no injury was
caused.
105A Assault without injury
Offences where, at the most, a feeling of touch or passing moment of pain is experienced by the victim.
Summary offences, closely associated with actual bodily harm (see classification 8N). Includes, amongst
other offences, common assault and aggravated assault. From 1 April 2003 only includes assaults
involving no injury, please note that this change was introduced a year earlier in England and Wales on
1 April 2002.
105B Racially or religiously-aggravated assault without injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault
without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
106 Modern slavery
Includes offences such as holding a person in slavery or servitude, requiring a person to perform forced
or compulsory labour and arranging/facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation.

Stalking and harassment
8L Harassment
Harassment offences are those incidents where no other substantive notifiable offence exists, but when
looked at as a course of conduct are likely to cause fear, alarm or distress. Within Northern Ireland this
classification is further split into harassment and intimidation offences.
8M Racially or religiously-aggravated harassment
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault
without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8Q Stalking
Stalking legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland on 27th April 2022, through the Protection from
Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Offences of “stalking” and of “threatening and abusive behaviour”
are recorded from this date.
8R Malicious communications
The recording of malicious communications offences started for the first time in Northern Ireland from 1st April 2017. This classification also includes offences relating to 'revenge porn'; new legislation on
disclosing private sexual photographs and film with intent to cause distress was introduced in June 2016.
8U Controlling or coercive behaviour
The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (NI) 2021 introduced the “domestic abuse offence” within
Northern Ireland on 21st February 2022, enabling the recording of abusive behaviour occurring on two or
more occasions against an intimate partner, former partner or close family member, ie within the definition
of domestic abuse used in Northern Ireland and where abusive behaviour includes controlling or coercive
behaviour, psychological abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse and economic abuse.

-end-

The following is a link to the ONS that lists the above for all of UK but without the extra detail:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/userguidetocrimestatisticsforenglandandwales#appendix-1-recorded-crime-list

So, as suspected, a male person can report his spouse or ex- spouse for domestic abuse (ie. not accepting that transition, and using the correct sex pronouns) and this would also be coded as a 'hate crime - violence against the person.'

Tweets that someone doesn't like about themselves fall under malicious communication and can be recorded as a 'hate crime- violence against the person'.

It always pays to look in the data that is being posted to check exactly what it says and doesn't say.

If someone says directly or implies or infers anything about 'violent' hate crimes, always check the source, and drill down to any data given.

But if women are so dangerous and predatory, wouldn’t the poor TIM be safer with the men?