Page 38 | 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?

Namelessnelly · 12/09/2025 06:07

I’m confused @Howseitgoin do you consider all safeguarding bad or just the but that doesn’t let men get what they want? Do you think anyone should be allowed to work with children or vulnerable people without background checks? Do you believe there should be no safeguarding of any kind for anything? If you don’t, you’re a misogynistic hypocrite aren’t you?

Helleofabore · 12/09/2025 06:11

Zero sum game => some one wins and some one loses.

Safeguarding for single sex spaces => all people of the other sex above about 8 years old stay out, not exceptions.

“Weaponising safeguarding” and zero sum game in the same reference can only mean that someone who is excluded cannot accept being excluded. That means that those excluding that person are to be subject to whatever wheedling or intimidation or attempts to logic that can be done to get included.

Thing is, those who demand access are usually the people the protections were directly aimed at keeping out.

Helleofabore · 12/09/2025 06:22

Howseitgoin · 12/09/2025 03:07

Thank you. It's posts like these encapsulating 'the' narrative that is very essence of why I'm interested in discussion forums.

Post truth & conspiricism are social phenomenas that particularly interest me given their corrosiveness to society. Nebulous strands with kernels of truth are woven by a combination of mental gymnastics & base fears into conduits designed to place doubt into standard modes of verification.

The goal here is a return to 'the cave': Reliance on emotion rather than logic. The crying call of many of these 'emotion' proponents (most famously Elon Musk & Trump) is 'don't believe anything unless you see it yourself' IE your senses. Discrediting the constitution of knowledge/institutions & their processes is particularity convenient for those attempting to avoid accountability.

White nationalist activists use it to deny black & ethnic data on hate crime as do Mens rights activists use it to deny data on crime against women. Police reporting as 'incompetent' or 'bias' or 'woke' can easily wave away data reliability that's probably just 'mean words' …cue Graham Linehan as 'proof'.

Convictions not being that high reflects the 'truth' of the 'lie' behind 90% of sexual assaults/hate crimes going unreported. Of course that people don't report crimes because they understandably can't deal with the justice process particularly when the likelihood of proving a crime is low or they simply don't attend public places for a justifiable fear of a hate crime is neither here not there.

The inconsistencies easily characterise these post truth evangelicals:

We are supposed to believe on one hand trans people are an existential threat to humanity where media demonising saturation is a necessary 'safe guard' & on the other: Who would ever raise a hand to such an inconsequential threat?

The threat is supposed to be so great that it necessitates the domination of social discourse & immediate government action for what is a minuscule community whose offence rate is so low its not statistically meaningful to draw any conclusions. But it's okay to discredit gender affirming care research for the same reason….'not enough people' as per Dr Cass.

Anyone pro trans must be enabler of misogyny but anyone who is pro women's spaces can't possibly be an enabler of misandry.

We are supposed to believe men are an ever present dangerous threat & therefore the necessity for private spaces & yet where sexual violence is substantially more likely: THE WORK PLACE doesn't necessitate such separation.

However, when research or police data confirms biases its 'real' evidence. Suddenly, institutional process is 'legitimate'. When science commentators confirm our bias its 'real' when not it's 'woke'. 'Woke' being the all purpose 'get out of jail free card'.

That's not all to say our institutional processes are without flaws hence the need for supporting evidence all of which points in a direction or not. I think of Dr Cass here & her decision to make an 'each way bet' on puberty blockers even tho she felt the evidence supporting it was 'low quality' as a consequence of the numbers of participants being so low as trans people are. She, understood that although any one study on their own was not enough, many pointed decisively in a direction where under strict research conditions were worth pursuing.

This is all to say, however you feel about trans people or the necessity of women's private spaces, the guiding principles you employ to pursue this cause aren't a zero sum game & can easily be weaponised against women by others.

We can give up our principles cheaply to win battles but we won't be winning any wars without them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegoryofthecave

Edited

Show quote history

So, I take it you didn’t check the data before posting and you didn’t understand that violence in this instance included a wide range of behaviours that were not physical violence.

You could have just admitted that you didn’t.

Namelessnelly · 12/09/2025 06:25

@Howseitgoin you said earlier you had been pregnant. So would you have been ok with any randomer off the street treating you? When your child is at nursery or school. Would you be ok with any randomer wandering in and looking after your child with no checks? You seem very clear that all safeguarding is wrong so yous obviously not want safeguarding done on anyone right?

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 06:50

They can fucking try to weaponise it against me.

A man forced his way through a door and sexually assaulted and raped me.

I know what happened to me.

I had to clean up the piss on my floor.

And I don’t want men in single sex women’s spaces.

I say no.

And the law in the U.K. says they’re not allowed in.

And a trans woman is a man.

So they’re not allowed in.

And the arrogance of me to go to a parenting site based in Australia and fling screeds of word salad at people to persuade them their laws are wrong is just breathtaking.

I say no. And my no has to be heard. I will continue to say it at every opportunity. And that poster can laugh all they like because I can see right through them.

Namelessnelly · 12/09/2025 06:56

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 06:50

They can fucking try to weaponise it against me.

A man forced his way through a door and sexually assaulted and raped me.

I know what happened to me.

I had to clean up the piss on my floor.

And I don’t want men in single sex women’s spaces.

I say no.

And the law in the U.K. says they’re not allowed in.

And a trans woman is a man.

So they’re not allowed in.

And the arrogance of me to go to a parenting site based in Australia and fling screeds of word salad at people to persuade them their laws are wrong is just breathtaking.

I say no. And my no has to be heard. I will continue to say it at every opportunity. And that poster can laugh all they like because I can see right through them.

That poster is a misogynistic bully. He thinks he’s so big and clever popping on to an internet forum posting edgy stuff to “own the Wimms”. He’s a sad loser who sees this as his “entertainment”. He has no clue what damage or upset he may cause and honestly, I don’t think he cares. I would feel sorry for his parents, but he is the product of their upbringing. I hope you’re ok and please don’t let this sad sack get to you.

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 07:00

I’m fine thank you. I’m just angry.

I’m angry that a woman has so little care for other women that they can laugh at and otherwise disregard actual lived experience.

I’m angry that a woman is so short sighted that she can’t see the risk she is putting young girls in to. Girls of pre-pubescent age.

I’m angry that a woman can be such a rape apologist. Because that’s where a consent violation ends up. It ends up with men thinking they don’t need to listen when women say no.

I’m angry that they can’t be bothered to even answer the questions I asked.

And I’m old and menopausal and have no fucks left to give, to quote a meme my friend sent me last week. I don’t care what they try. They won’t break me, and I won’t stop. Because I say no.

TheKeatingFive · 12/09/2025 07:10

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 07:00

I’m fine thank you. I’m just angry.

I’m angry that a woman has so little care for other women that they can laugh at and otherwise disregard actual lived experience.

I’m angry that a woman is so short sighted that she can’t see the risk she is putting young girls in to. Girls of pre-pubescent age.

I’m angry that a woman can be such a rape apologist. Because that’s where a consent violation ends up. It ends up with men thinking they don’t need to listen when women say no.

I’m angry that they can’t be bothered to even answer the questions I asked.

And I’m old and menopausal and have no fucks left to give, to quote a meme my friend sent me last week. I don’t care what they try. They won’t break me, and I won’t stop. Because I say no.

Edited

I would be incredibly surprised if this poster is a woman.

I'm sorry for everything you went through ❤️

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 07:11

They say they’re a woman in Australia.

I suppose people can lie on the internet. But. I’m taking that at face value.

I’d have expected a woman to understand more about consent to be fair.

TheKeatingFive · 12/09/2025 07:19

People can say anything they like about themselves. It doesn't mean it's true.

I do not think a woman could respond so callously to another woman's trauma or take such an ignorant position on safeguarding and women's consent.

Namelessnelly · 12/09/2025 07:20

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 07:00

I’m fine thank you. I’m just angry.

I’m angry that a woman has so little care for other women that they can laugh at and otherwise disregard actual lived experience.

I’m angry that a woman is so short sighted that she can’t see the risk she is putting young girls in to. Girls of pre-pubescent age.

I’m angry that a woman can be such a rape apologist. Because that’s where a consent violation ends up. It ends up with men thinking they don’t need to listen when women say no.

I’m angry that they can’t be bothered to even answer the questions I asked.

And I’m old and menopausal and have no fucks left to give, to quote a meme my friend sent me last week. I don’t care what they try. They won’t break me, and I won’t stop. Because I say no.

Edited

That poster is not a woman.

RedToothBrush · 12/09/2025 08:12

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 07:11

They say they’re a woman in Australia.

I suppose people can lie on the internet. But. I’m taking that at face value.

I’d have expected a woman to understand more about consent to be fair.

They say a lot of things which are lies, mistruths and otherwise utter provable bullshit.

I would take claims of the sex being female with a massive pinch of salt.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 12/09/2025 08:16

Oh well, now I’ve had the wall o’ text I totally think that some men are really women and locking women up with rapists is totally fine. I also understand now that I have no right to privacy from men and just need to ignore my feelings of discomfort

oh no, hang on a minute

really, how can anyone believe anything so nonsensical

I’m gonna go ahead and say it today. What an absolute tool this poster is

ArabellaSaurus · 12/09/2025 08:22

Come now, Bernard. Howseit used all his biggest words! How could you fail to be convinced?!

GailBlancheViola · 12/09/2025 08:24

Howseitgoin · 11/09/2025 10:01

You do that dear.

I'm off for today. Be back tomorrow with the same links….

Show quote history

Don't bother, you've delighted us with your presence long enough.

No amount of wheedling, whinging, tantrums, threats of violence or actual violence will change the fact that the in the UK single sex spaces and services are exactly that, single sex, based on biological sex not gender or identity.

It was laid on the Statute Books in 2010 and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025 that single sex spaces, services and sports are provided on the basis of biological sex. The overwhelming majority of women and girls want single sex spaces, services and sports to be provided on that basis and the Law stipulates that.

If men and boys don't like it, tough, I don't care and I won't change my mind no matter how much irrelevant nonsense you post.

ArabellaSaurus · 12/09/2025 08:31

SupremeCourt - cookers. Cass - cooker. Half the government - cookers. The large majority of women in the UK who would prefer single sex spaces - cookers.

At a certain point, one should ask oneself if one is seeing cookers absolutely everywhere... why that is.

But I'm delighted to have learned this new word. It's a good one.

Helleofabore · 12/09/2025 08:44

ArabellaSaurus · 12/09/2025 08:31

SupremeCourt - cookers. Cass - cooker. Half the government - cookers. The large majority of women in the UK who would prefer single sex spaces - cookers.

At a certain point, one should ask oneself if one is seeing cookers absolutely everywhere... why that is.

But I'm delighted to have learned this new word. It's a good one.

I must admit that when some people use the term cooker, but they keep posting about how everything is a conspiracy because they cannot post something meaningful to defend their points, kind of shows who is and isn’t a ‘cooker’.

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 12/09/2025 08:51

Taztoy · 12/09/2025 07:00

I’m fine thank you. I’m just angry.

I’m angry that a woman has so little care for other women that they can laugh at and otherwise disregard actual lived experience.

I’m angry that a woman is so short sighted that she can’t see the risk she is putting young girls in to. Girls of pre-pubescent age.

I’m angry that a woman can be such a rape apologist. Because that’s where a consent violation ends up. It ends up with men thinking they don’t need to listen when women say no.

I’m angry that they can’t be bothered to even answer the questions I asked.

And I’m old and menopausal and have no fucks left to give, to quote a meme my friend sent me last week. I don’t care what they try. They won’t break me, and I won’t stop. Because I say no.

Edited

Firstly, I’m so sorry for what happened to you, I can’t imagine how you dealt with such a terrible thing, and I am in awe of you.

Secondly, I don’t think that poster is a woman, they behave like every other misogynistic prick that has ever posted on this board. They try to manipulate us into thinking that women can easily behave like them, because that would make their appalling behaviour less revolting.

Take care.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/09/2025 08:57