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?

Sure are.
Whats the actual problem its a cubicle you smal minded person.
Theyre into men not you

Yes, no one has ever been attacked in a cubicle, or made to feel uncomfortable, or found a hidden camera. Cubicles are always perfectly safe.

I mean, chances are this particular transwoman is absolutely fine, but there is nothing wrong with OP, or any woman, expecting not to find men in the women's facilities.

Not when lots of them claim to be 'lesbians'.

Into men? Please explain.

I can’t believe there are still people coming on to this board to post embarrassing nonsense like this.

Yes, if they're into men, why have so many of them been convicted of raping women and girls? Why do so many of them have wives and girlfriends?

Go back through my posts please

"Theyre into men not you"

Well... now. There is some serious misinformation in that post.

No. male people with transgender identities are not exclusively male homosexual people. That is quite an error to make.

And it doesn't matter whether that male person in that cubicle is even sexually attracted to the female person in another cubicle. Harm occurs none the less, even unintentionally.

That is not forgetting that some of these male people like to abuse female people in different ways that are not sexual in nature.

I think it rather a point of projection that you called Waitingforthesunnydays a 'small minded person'. That seems to more likely a description of your attitudes.

Sure sure. The two girls attacked by this man were perfectly safe because there are cubicles and they’re not men. 🙄🙄🙄

I did. You haven’t linked any evidence.

Regardless of who they are 'into', they remain male. Female only facilities are there for the dignity and privacy of female people.

Maybe it identifies as evidence.

I was out at a bar on Saturday that is progressive, welcoming, and does not discriminate. I went to the ladies' several times that night and often with transwomen. Had a pee. Nothing happened. The world kept on spinning.

I've spent time with lions (awake, unsedated, unrestrained, not the other side of any sort of barrier, not just in the vicinity - properly with). None of them tried to eat me, or harm me in any way.

Lions are far more likely to be killed by a human than they are to kill a human.

Both these statements are completely true and accurate. They are also utterly stupid arguments for getting rid of zoo cages and letting lions wander around British cities as they please 'just living their lives'.

What you seem really upset about is men using 'trans' as an excuse to get into women’s spaces, not genuine trans people just quietly living their lives.
It sounds like your issue is with people you think are acting in bad faith or for the wrong reasons, not with trans people as a whole. And if that’s the case, then yes, those situations would be a problem for both women and trans people.

Again, I'll ask you, do you think that genuine transwomen (whatever that means) are the only group of humans who never commit violent crimes or breach boundaries?

And once again, I'll ask how you tell the difference?

Sweden is the only country in Europe that has more mixed sex public loos than single sex ones.

We have!

I am happy to keep posting this from the previous page though.

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.

There were UK ministry of justice figures have also been posted pages ago. Did you miss them? Several people have posted them, but I have also provided fuller details about them. These are important to understand safeguarding decisions based on category level risk assessment.

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.

It must be clear by now, the issue is with male people, regardless of how they 'identify' or who they do or do not fancy. We have singles sex facilities, services and sporting categories in order to give dignity to women and girls, and to provide a level of safeguarding against known risks when in public places.

No male person is ever a female person. Female people count, and in our society we have developed a system and a set of established practices which recognise that.

Forgot to add the link.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14674350/trans-paedo-supermarket-toilet-ruling/

Not to mention the huge rise in voyeurism cases in cubicles and toilets in recent years. Must have imagined them, right?

Even those who you characterise as being 'genuine trans people just quietly living their lives' have been convicted for sexual offences?

You seem to think that you, personally, can arbitrate who is and who is not a trans person. I am sure you understand that this is actually really offensive to those people who say that they are transgender.

Not only that, it is a massive safeguarding failure for any female person to make an instant risk assessment of whether or not the male person in front of them is one of those 'genuine trans people just quietly living their lives' or not. That is why strong safeguarding is to exclude ALL male people.

No female person then has to make an instant safeguarding risk assessment based on an instant observation of the male person in front of them.

Every single person claiming to be a transwoman is a man. By using female spaces they are violating the boundaries and consent of females. They are ALL acting in bad faith. Every single one of them

Depends on so much.

How this person behaves - do I get danger or creep vibes or just living life ones.

Can I pick a time to avoid bumping into them or a different toilet location/option further away fairly easily so it's a non issue.

Bathroom layout - entire self contained happier then more open cubicles - how busy the toilets generally are - their location in building how safe that feels.

A lot of this is done sort of semi automatcally as part of background risk assesment most women just do daily - unless you know layout and individual in question very hard to say before hand.

I feel so sad for the trans women I have known. Unfortunately one died and the other is thriving, loving life and is the face of a big advertising campaign. They are/were such gentle souls and it genuinely hurts that there is such venom and hatred towards them for no real reason.
We are all agreement that we don't want pervy men masquerading as women in our spaces - they would agree with this too and have been subject to male sexual abuse themselves and are as vulnerable as us. They were my friends at one point in my life before I moved away and it's just so sad that there is so much lack of understanding and care for our fellow humans.

I totally agree that it's just so sad that there is so much lack of understanding and care for what women want and need.