Do you avoid the bathroom if there is a transwoman?

[PeachyDaisy]

I’m going to an industry event next week and I know there will be a transwoman attending. Should I use the disabled bathroom to avoid an awkward encounter or just continue to use the women’s and hope not to run into them?

And why are transwomen's feelings to be taken super seriously, but the feelings of women who are unwilling or even scared to share facilities with males, not?

Why do you think men don’t get sexual gratification for thinking they are their very male fantasy version of ‘female’? They have no idea what it actually is like to be female so they can only ever identify with a fantasy. A male fantasy.

Prove it.

We are men who feel like women and are scared to pee with other men = Oh you poor things, you shouldn't have to put up with that.

Women who are actually women and scared to pee with other men = Your concerns are manufactured, and you'll pee with men whether you like it or not.

Interesting double standards on display by a few posters, I must say.

That is not how science works. You have to
prove they are.

No. I have a trans friend and we go to the toilets together when we go out which is rare but still. I literally don’t care. I’m going for a wee, washing my hands and leaving. I probably don’t even notice they’re in there.

I would suggest that it is not likely for a great many Australians who live outside of the major cities.

"Trans people are just generally out to live their lives quietly, without you noticing them at all."

This is wrong on a few levels. Firstly, the issue is about male people. Then you believe that people don't correctly identify the sex category of male people with transgender identities.

Then there is the inherent dismissal of the fact that it is when sex matters that the issue becomes significant in people's lives. That is when the description of those male people generally out to live their lives quietly is directly dismissing the legitimate concerns that some female people have about those male people being in female single sex provisions.

If a male person is living their life and in doing so causing harm, even unintentionally, to female people by accessing what the female person believes should be a single sex provision when she made the decision to use that provision, that harm should not be dismissed.

I have a husband. Should other women matter if I think it is fine for him to come into a woman’s changing room with me? I don’t have a problem with him stripping off in front of me or me stripping off in front of him.

I have lots of lovely male friends who I'd happily pee in the same spaces as, does that mean they can all come in the ladies with me?

I have some lovely male friends, I still wouldn't want them in the loo with me. Because they are men.
Just out of interest when do you think men become women? At what point would you consider them OK to be in the 'ladies'?

You stated my evidence wasn't credible - I have presented my evidence, now it's down to you to prove it's not credible.

It's an important point. I was watching tik tok or something and scrolled to a live streamer. I didn't know if they were trans but it was a man with makeup on and women's clothing. A few minutes in he told us he had a sex toy up his arse. I felt really shocked weird. It was like some kind of online version of an indecent assault

I guess it would depend on how desperately I needed the loo. I'd be really annoyed though. But not enough to challenge them for being there. It's unfortunate that you live in Australia. All hope seems lost re the trans lunacy in your country.

OK then…

Men are statistically a risk to women. Even after they have transitioned and even after using hormonal and surgical treatments.

Around 99% of perpetrators of rape are male.

”Around the world, at least 1 woman in every 3 has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime.”

https://www.humboldt.edu/supporting-survivors/educational-resources/statistics

Women’s safety matters. This matters.

Wait, maybe the process of transitioning reduces their risk to women?

I’m afraid not.

A swedish study in 2011 followed a group of individuals who undertook surgical and hormonal treatment and legal sex reassignment.

They concluded that male to female transitioners retained a male pattern of criminality.

Why does this matter, you say?

Well male to female transitioners were over six times more likely to be found guilty of committing an offence and 18 times more likely to be committed of a violent offence.

Women’s safety matters. This matters.

Finally, to address the “they’re just trying to mind their own business” justification.

A 2020 Ministry of Justice survey of individuals in UK prisons looked at the proportion of offenders who were sex offenders.

Of women prisoners 3.3% were sex offenders.
Of male prisoners, 16.9% were sex offenders.
Of trans prisoners, 58.9% were sex offenders.

Stop. Read that again.
If you are a trans women in prison you are nearly 18 times more likely to be a sex offender than if you are a biological woman in prison.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/html/

Women’s safety matters. This matters.

Am I saying all men are dangerous?

No, I’m not, but we keep them out of places where we are vulnerable for, amongst many reasons, the fact that they are statistically a greater risk to women.

Am I saying all men who have transitioned to “women” dangerous?

No, I’m not but we know they retain male patterns of behaviours. As a result we should keep them out of places where we are vulnerable for, amongst many reasons, the fact that they are statistically a greater risk to women.

Toilets are places where we are more vulnerable, can be found on our own.

Women’s safety matters. Women’s spaces matter. This matters.

You haven’t presented evidence, you cited a narrative piece - that is not evidence. Please
link actually evidence.

Ohh is that the kind that centres men?

Wouldn’t it be nice to finally get an answer to this question.

I would be very annoyed at the invasion because that is exactly what it is. I’m not happy having female single sex facilities, turned into mixed sex facilities, without the consent from anyone else using it.

There are issues around the credibility of the link you posted.

However, the thing is... it is irrelevant to the discussion around male people accessing female single sex provisions.

Whether or not a male person has been subjected to horrific violence is not a reason for that male person to access female single sex provisions. Many male people are violently attacked by others, but they don't get to access female single sex provisions.

Your point about them being victimised is irrelevant because strong safeguarding around publicly accessible single sex provisions is based on sex category for a reason. For that decision, the risk of harm is accessed about the risk that category of human, male, poses to female people.

If a group of male people require special provisions, that is for them to organise with whoever they need to organise this with, not for them to access female single sex provisions.

Harm is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

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, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-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.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces and vice versa.

They are all important.

The point is, safeguarding principles for female single sex provisions are based on blanket discrimination and the category for that discrimination is the sex category. No male person changes out of the male sex category to the female sex category. This is not possible for a male person to change sex.

In the UK, (which was also not relevant to your link), this access to female single sex provisions has been clarified by the Supreme Court judgement a year ago. However, the law has been in place since 2010.

In the UK, (which was also not relevant to your link), this access to female single sex provisions has been clarified by the Supreme Court judgement a year ago. However, the law has been in place since 2010.

It was clarified for those with a GRC a year ago, it was clarified for those without several years before that.

There were UK ministry of justice figures posted pages ago. Did you miss them.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5526023-do-you-avoid-the-bathroom-if-there-is-a-transwoman?page=5

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5526023-do-you-avoid-the-bathroom-if-there-is-a-transwoman?page=6

These are the relevant statistics that should be used to assess the safeguarding risk for whether:

A group of male people have the same risk or lower risk than the general female population in the UK for the purposes of committing sexual offences.

The point for safeguarding decisions to consider is not

-whether a group of male people are victimised more than others groups

-whether a group of male people have a greater risk profile of committing sexual offences than the general male population.

nor is it whether an individual can pass or not, has done enough for some people to consider he has done enough to earn the right to enter, or any other arbitrary decision.

It is also not limited to sexual offences or risk of violence. There are many other harms that allowing a male person to access female single sex provisions needs to consider. These have already been listed on this thread.

Loads of public toilets abroad are for both F and M.. they have cubicles..what's the big deal? No do not use the disabled loo unless you are disabled.. l could be waiting for the disabled loo in an hurry.

It's different if you know the facilities are mixed sex from the off than if it's just finding a man in there when he has no right to be, for starters.

There's also tons of research that shows women are less safe in mixed-sex provision, and I'd say that's a big deal for anyone who cares about safeguarding.

You should check out some of the many videos posted by transwomen wankingin the ladies, getting their cocks out, stealing used tampons, and laughing at/getting aroused by women peeing, and you might get some idea of the issues.

I really don't understand why all these people who think it's no big deal don't just push for everything to be mixed-sex if it makes no difference.

I don't believe it is standard for a conference venue, or for many other publicly accessed toilets, in Australia to be mixed sex provisions. There is a difference from a small restaurant or small hired sex vs a conference site.

What is the big deal? Those toilets will have a different construction for a start. A woman should be able to express her discomfort in sharing what she expects to be a female single sex provision with a male person without it being dismissed.

There is a difference between a female choosing to use a female single sex provision and her making a conscious choice to sharing a mixed sex provision as well.

The other issue is that no other female person should feel that they can give consent for any other female person. So the fuck what if one women declares that they are happy to use a female single sex provision with a male person over the age of about 8 years old. It is irrelevant!

That consenting female person cannot consent for any other female person.

And lots of toilets abroad are labelled as either for 'men' or 'women', including in some of those places that people suggest might otherwise be the case. In fact, personally, I can't recall ever being in a mixed sex facility/toilet abroad. Of course, single occupancy rooms don't count - but even then, even in trendy areas of Barcelona ( El Borne, for example), for example.....one will be marked for men, and one for women.