Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Metaphor]

It depends on what the deceased died of and the condition of the body, presumably. But an inverted and mutilated penis is not a vagina, and a coroner will certainly and unambiguously know it. A neophallus is also not a phallus, because rolled up forearm skin is not a penis and can never be one.

Trans ideologists want anthropologists to stop identifying the sex of the human remains they find--because the anthropologists cannot know what gender identity that person was. You could not make it up.

What difference does it make what genitals someone has?

I didn't bring up genitals; Toni and others did. They are obsessed with bringing up genitals, as if genitals determined sex. They don't.

Under typical conditions you'll never know. Even under conditions where one might know/suspect (say, the local backcountry hot spring--unofficially clothing optional and few people wear more than skimpy bathing suits) why should I care?

If it's a mixed sex facility, then you should expect to see all kinds of genitals. But in a single sex space, you should expect only a single sex.

 

[Metaphor]

It depends on what the deceased died of and the condition of the body, presumably. But an inverted and mutilated penis is not a vagina, and a coroner will certainly and unambiguously know it. A neophallus is also not a phallus, because rolled up forearm skin is not a penis and can never be one.

Trans ideologists want anthropologists to stop identifying the sex of the human remains they find--because the anthropologists cannot know what gender identity that person was. You could not make it up.

What difference does it make what genitals someone has?

I didn't bring up genitals; Toni and others did. They are obsessed with bringing up genitals, as if genitals determined sex. They don't.

Under typical conditions you'll never know. Even under conditions where one might know/suspect (say, the local backcountry hot spring--unofficially clothing optional and few people wear more than skimpy bathing suits) why should I care?

If it's a mixed sex facility, then you should expect to see all kinds of genitals. But in a single sex space, you should expect only a single sex.

Genitals are the primary and correct I dust or if sex in most cases. That what doctors rely on when a baby is born.

Yes, doctors - or indeed anybody - can reliably observe and record a baby's sex by glancing at the baby's genitals. But genitals do not cause sex. Sex causes genitals to develop down a particular pathway. Altering somebody's genitals does not change their sex.

What do you think should be used?

For almost all medical and social purposes for the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived, sex as observed via genitals is a sufficient indicator of sex.

Genetically male karyotypes who have differences of sexual development that cause them to not respond to androgens and thus continue to develop the phenotype of the default female sex class look phenotypically female and belong with other women in single-sex spaces. Indeed, many of these people (unless they want biological children) probably don't know they are genetically male.

In single-sex spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons), sex as recorded by observed genitals at birth is sufficient.

 

[Metaphor]

The same is true of trans-identified people. They do not and cannot change sex.

That is correct. Which is why the language has shifted to refer to "Trans-identified people" more correctly as transgendered rather than transexual as was once common when we knew less fashions in ideology were different.

FIFY.

I guess if you're not familiar with the sciences, changes of common terminology must seem quite faddish? They do happen often, but that is because knowledge is constantly expanding. We generally adopt new conventions of categorization when our awareness of the world increases, and more precise language is needed to avoid error or confusion.

Whilst the term 'transsexual' does not make sense, since people cannot change sex, 'transgender' equally does not make sense. Trans ideologists claim trans people are ans were always the gender they claim, so there is no 'trans' to it. Nothing is transitioning--certainly not your gender identity.

Gender identification and presentation can change.

The trans ideologists have always tried to tell me presentation is never an indication of gender identity. You must never assume.

And it doesn't have to stay 'fixed' after a change, either.

Do you believe it is reasonable, then, that society organises previously sex-segregrated spaces based on 'gender identity'? If I can claim a gender identity of 'man' one day, 'woman' the next, 'non-binary' the third (and all three on Fridays), doesn't that make a sex-segregated space completely meaningless?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Under typical conditions you'll never know. Even under conditions where one might know/suspect (say, the local backcountry hot spring--unofficially clothing optional and few people wear more than skimpy bathing suits) why should I care?

If it's a mixed sex facility, then you should expect to see all kinds of genitals. But in a single sex space, you should expect only a single sex.

The question was why should I care?

(And what I'm referring to isn't a "facility" in the first place. It's a geothermal spring that some people have put up a couple of sandbag walls and the park service has put up a ladder.)

 

[TomC]

Could we get rid of the trans derail stuff?

If I hated the staff, I'd ask for a split. Sort out the trans nonsense, send it to Elsewhere.

I see drag as a completely different issue.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Under typical conditions you'll never know. Even under conditions where one might know/suspect (say, the local backcountry hot spring--unofficially clothing optional and few people wear more than skimpy bathing suits) why should I care?

If it's a mixed sex facility, then you should expect to see all kinds of genitals. But in a single sex space, you should expect only a single sex.

The question was why should I care?

Why should you care that a single-sex facility lies about being single-sex? Is that what you are asking me?

 

[bilby]

I see drag as a completely different issue.

Yeah, but only because it is.

 

[Metaphor]

I see drag as a completely different issue.

Yeah, but only because it is.

Tell that to the trans organisations that have explicitly included 'crossdressing' and 'drag' under their 'trans umbrella'.

https://www.campuspride.org/wp-content/uploads/TransUmbrella.pdf

 

[Toni]

Suppose you are right: transgender is a delusion. How does that harm you or me? If someone wishes to live as a male who was born female, why should they not? Women have done that for centuries, in fact. Now, they can have surgery and other medical interventions to make their body look the way they feel. Why should they not? Why should a person who is born with the appearance of being male but who feels themselves ti be female not be allowed to have the medical treatment to help them look the way they want to? Why should society not recognize the change? Why shouldn’t the law?

I absolutely share your concerns about violent individuals gaining access to their preferred victim type. This should not be allowed. Regardless of sex or gender identity

To a fair extent, I don't have any problem with transgender people. If someone born male wishes to dress and present in stereotypically female ways, more power to them - they don't even need to identify as trans to do that. Anyone who wants to wear heels and a skirt shoudl feel free to do so.

If adults wish to have surgery to make their bodies look different, they should be free to do so. I'm not overly fond of that being funded by the public, as it is a cosmetic undertaking. But still, adults can do as they wish with their own bodies. I only object to permanent changes being applied to children.

*IF* a person has complete surgical alteration, I don't even really object to them being recognized by law, and being granted to single-sex spaces for the opposite sex. But that *IF* is a really big and important piece of it, and its one that the overwhelming majority of transgender identified males do NOT have. Somewhere around 80% or so of transgender identified males are male-bodied and have no intention of having surgery.

And that's where it gets sticky for me. There's a reason that many services are sex-segregated. Sex is a very real, very meaningful element of our existence. And it's also a source of discrimination faced almost exclusively by females throughout history. And whether it's nice or not, whether it's polite, whether it hurts someone's feelz... it is a fact of existence that males have used their physicality to oppress, subjugate, dominate, and to rape females throughout history. I think it's reasonable to have sex-segregated spaces and services where people are naked or are vulnerable.

I don’t disagree that there should be separation between ANY person who is physically or sexually violent towards whoever the preferred victim set is. There ARE women who sexually abuse children, other women or men. Or anyone they see as vulnerable. There are men who sexually abuse children, women and other men or anyone they see as vulnerable. Of course no one should be allowed access to those they wish to victimize. I think it is unhelpful at best and naive to not recognize that the subset of individuals who feign being trans in order to obtain better access to victims is quite small but still greater than zero and that threats to vulnerable resins are more likely to come from cis individuals.

I posit that there's a higher likelihood of assault by a non-op transgender identified male who demands the right to transgress female sex-specific boundaries than there is from any female using female sex-specific spaces.

I also posit that there's a higher likelihood of assault of males by a male sex-specific spaces than there is from any transgender identified female who demands on transgressing male sex-specific boundaries.

If you have a sure-fire way to tell which males are a risk and which are not, then I will reconsider my stance on sex-specific spaces, and will alter my position to be "bad actor" exclusive.

My stance is that ALL persons deserve to be protected from likely attacks, sexual or otherwise, regardless of the sex or gender of victim or attacker.

PERIOD.

Setting up congregate spaces in a way that minimizes or better, eliminates the likelihood of attacks--by anyone!--is what should be done. Doing so means that one does not need to be focused on whether someone is faking being a transwoman or not. Because it's much more likely that there are cis women in say, a prison setting, who are predisposed towards being violent towards others, including other women than than it is that there are fake transwomen in the prison setting waiting to attack cis women. Of course, the larger threat remains male guards.

 

[Oleg]

I hate to be mean but describing Brian as a beauty is a fucking stretch of epic proportions. Never the less, "she/he" won and will receive some sort of scholarship.

It is quite amazing how these dudes keep pushing real woman/girls out of female spaces. It's as if they're acting like, err, men.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is quite amazing how these dudes keep pushing real woman/girls out of female spaces.

What is even more amazing is the willingness of so many women to not only go along with it but go absolutely mental when a woman dares to question it.

 

[Toni]

In the roman world, people didn't carry cards that proclaimed them men or women, and have to identify themselves as such before leaving and going somewhere else, for the most part.

You could just go somewhere, live quietly, and nobody would ask questions about social role changes or personal representation, and generally take people at face value. For the most part. I suspect some people such as yourself existed even then.

As can be seen in documents about eastern culture, though, we can clearly see many instances of social transition. It's a common archetype throughout history.

And we have plenty of examples of women choosing to live as men to overcome discrimination even though they aren't actually trans.

So long as it is not for malicious purpose what difference does it make what gender someone presents as?

https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/It-s-a-Kilt-If-I-Wore-Underwear-It-Would-Be-a-Skirt-by-mintytees/16060308.FB110

I don’t disagree—it should not matter. OTOH, I can well understand women being uncomfortable in bathrooms or showers/changing areas if they encounter a person with a penis and testicles. Yes, it is almost certainly not someone who intends them harm or even mild discomfort but of course there are individuals who would deliberately invade such spaces where women and girls are unclothed and vulnerable fir the purpose of intimidation or sexual thrills or even assault. Yes, that’s very rare. But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes. I would be upset if my young daughter had to deal with changing or showering with someone with intact male genitalia.

So it is difficult to even articulate what a good policy would be: in most cases, no harm would be intended or done. But how to eliminate the risk?

I will point out that it is unlikely that most boys and men would feel similarly threatened or uncomfortable if they encountered a pre surgical trans man.

I’m writing this as someone who is pretty comfortable with nudity. But I’d still prefer not to encounter someone with a penis in the ladies locker room at the Y.

 

[Jarhyn]

But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes

Let's look at this from the perspective of whether that is fair to all the people that did not assault them.

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a large population of people who have been assaulted by, and only by, a black person, at an ATM.

It is an unfortunate reality of our world that the majority of crimes are committed by the poor in the US and the US has an endemic poverty problem among black people. The majority of money based assaults are committed by black people for this reason, a statistic touted by our board's racists time and again.

Does it make sense to have separated ATMs for black and white people because people may be uncomfortable having been assaulted by a black person at an ATM?

Now, change ATM and skin tone for bathroom and genital appearance...

We have a clear parallel between motivating factors (normal financial situation vs normal hormonal situation). We have a clear trend in trauma experiences. We have a clear trend in identifiability of commonalities with perpetrators.

I think in some respects, those who have such trauma reactions have responsibilities to understand that while a "person with a penis" attacked them, this is not that "person with a penis".

 

[Toni]

But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes

Let's look at this from the perspective of whether that is fair to all the people that did not assault them.

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a large population of people who have been assaulted by, and only by, a black person, at an ATM.

It is an unfortunate reality of our world that the majority of crimes are committed by the poor in the US and the US has an endemic poverty problem among black people. The majority of money based assaults are committed by black people for this reason, a statistic touted by our board's racists time and again.

Does it make sense to have separated ATMs for black and white people because people may be uncomfortable having been assaulted by a black person at an ATM?

Now, change ATM and skin tone for bathroom and genital appearance...

We have a clear parallel between motivating factors (normal financial situation vs normal hormonal situation). We have a clear trend in trauma experiences. We have a clear trend in identifiability of commonalities with perpetrators.

I think in some respects, those who have such trauma reactions have responsibilities to understand that while a "person with a penis" attacked them, this is not that "person with a penis".

First of all, you are conflating poor and black with committing crimes. If the last 6 years have demonstrated nothing, it should be that white people, especially those with any sort of wealth and power are just a lot less likely to be arrested and prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.

Secondly, a large portion of women and girls have experienced some degree of sexual assault at some point in their lives. One in four have been raped. Very few of the survivors of sexual assault are traumatized by seeing men on the streets, in schools and work places, in their homes. Hell, a lot of them still live in the same homes with their rapists. I frequently saw the person who attempted to rape me at family events. So get off that right now.

Being in a dressing room when one is undressed and showering or preparing to shower or getting dressed again and being confronted by someone with a penis in a space that is supposedly for women would be startling for most girls and women, even those who have never experienced sexual assault. It could be quite traumatizing to be so confronted with such an individual when one is in an extremely vulnerable position: unclothed, partially or totally, and in a space where one did not expect to see anyone male.

Do I think this is likely to happen? I would guess--and I certainly do not know this as fact--that most pre or non surgical transwomen would prefer to keep their genitals private as well. This is probably not a very common experience and probably less common would be a trans individual intending harm.

I realize I am talking about a fairly remote possibility but imagine being a survivor of sexual assault, working out at the gym and stepping into the shower only to see someone with a penis standing next to you. Imagine if that were your niece or daughter. It would be upsetting, even if no harm was intended. I'm pretty certain that having women show signs of distress would also upset the trans individual.

Maybe this is just too remote a possibility to be planned for. But at least some women and girls would stop going to gyms and such if they knew that they might encounter an individual with a penis in the locker room.

I'm not interested in curtailing the rights of trans individuals to live their lives as they see fit. But I'm also not interested in seeing women have to further curtail their lives in order to feel safe.

Women and girls are taught explicitly or learn from experience to be constantly vigilant and how to curtail their own behavior in order to avoid attracting unwanted attention or sexual assault. You can try googling it yourself but here's a couple of links that describe every day things that women simply do:

34 Things Women Do To Stay Safe Show The Burden Of 'Being Careful'

34 Things Women Do To Stay Safe Show The Burden Of 'Being Careful'

www.huffpost.com

259 Things Women Do Daily to Avoid Being Assaulted - Girls Gone Strong

With sexual harassment and assault all over the headlines in Hollywood, sports, politics, and fitness, I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic and having lots of conversations about it...

www.girlsgonestrong.com

Please note: I am NOT suggesting that trans people are a threat to anyone else. I am NOT suggesting that trans people should not be able to visit the gyms and restrooms that they feel comfortable in. I AM suggesting that some thought needs to be given to how to preserve the sense of safety and even modesty that women need to use gyms and similar public spaces.

 

[Politesse]

But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes

Let's look at this from the perspective of whether that is fair to all the people that did not assault them.

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a large population of people who have been assaulted by, and only by, a black person, at an ATM.

It is an unfortunate reality of our world that the majority of crimes are committed by the poor in the US and the US has an endemic poverty problem among black people. The majority of money based assaults are committed by black people for this reason, a statistic touted by our board's racists time and again.

Does it make sense to have separated ATMs for black and white people because people may be uncomfortable having been assaulted by a black person at an ATM?

Now, change ATM and skin tone for bathroom and genital appearance...

We have a clear parallel between motivating factors (normal financial situation vs normal hormonal situation). We have a clear trend in trauma experiences. We have a clear trend in identifiability of commonalities with perpetrators.

I think in some respects, those who have such trauma reactions have responsibilities to understand that while a "person with a penis" attacked them, this is not that "person with a penis".

First of all, you are conflating poor and black with committing crimes. If the last 6 years have demonstrated nothing, it should be that white people, especially those with any sort of wealth and power are just a lot less likely to be arrested and prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.

Secondly, a large portion of women and girls have experienced some degree of sexual assault at some point in their lives. One in four have been raped. Very few of the survivors of sexual assault are traumatized by seeing men on the streets, in schools and work places, in their homes. Hell, a lot of them still live in the same homes with their rapists. I frequently saw the person who attempted to rape me at family events. So get off that right now.

Being in a dressing room when one is undressed and showering or preparing to shower or getting dressed again and being confronted by someone with a penis in a space that is supposedly for women would be startling for most girls and women, even those who have never experienced sexual assault. It could be quite traumatizing to be so confronted with such an individual when one is in an extremely vulnerable position: unclothed, partially or totally, and in a space where one did not expect to see anyone male.

Do I think this is likely to happen? I would guess--and I certainly do not know this as fact--that most pre or non surgical transwomen would prefer to keep their genitals private as well. This is probably not a very common experience and probably less common would be a trans individual intending harm.

I realize I am talking about a fairly remote possibility but imagine being a survivor of sexual assault, working out at the gym and stepping into the shower only to see someone with a penis standing next to you. Imagine if that were your niece or daughter. It would be upsetting, even if no harm was intended. I'm pretty certain that having women show signs of distress would also upset the trans individual.

Maybe this is just too remote a possibility to be planned for. But at least some women and girls would stop going to gyms and such if they knew that they might encounter an individual with a penis in the locker room.

I'm not interested in curtailing the rights of trans individuals to live their lives as they see fit. But I'm also not interested in seeing women have to further curtail their lives in order to feel safe.

Women and girls are taught explicitly or learn from experience to be constantly vigilant and how to curtail their own behavior in order to avoid attracting unwanted attention or sexual assault. You can try googling it yourself but here's a couple of links that describe every day things that women simply do:

34 Things Women Do To Stay Safe Show The Burden Of 'Being Careful'

34 Things Women Do To Stay Safe Show The Burden Of 'Being Careful'

www.huffpost.com

259 Things Women Do Daily to Avoid Being Assaulted - Girls Gone Strong

With sexual harassment and assault all over the headlines in Hollywood, sports, politics, and fitness, I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic and having lots of conversations about it...

www.girlsgonestrong.com

Please note: I am NOT suggesting that trans people are a threat to anyone else. I am NOT suggesting that trans people should not be able to visit the gyms and restrooms that they feel comfortable in. I AM suggesting that some thought needs to be given to how to preserve the sense of safety and even modesty that women need to use gyms and similar public spaces.

Having frankly seen more than enough violence in my life, I don't like dining in restaurants where people are open-carrying firearms, even if they are police. Should they all be forced to eat in private booths so as to spare me the worry? I am not sure "comfort" and "rights" should be balanced against one another in such a fashion.

 

[Toni]

But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes

Let's look at this from the perspective of whether that is fair to all the people that did not assault them.

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a large population of people who have been assaulted by, and only by, a black person, at an ATM.

It is an unfortunate reality of our world that the majority of crimes are committed by the poor in the US and the US has an endemic poverty problem among black people. The majority of money based assaults are committed by black people for this reason, a statistic touted by our board's racists time and again.

Does it make sense to have separated ATMs for black and white people because people may be uncomfortable having been assaulted by a black person at an ATM?

Now, change ATM and skin tone for bathroom and genital appearance...

We have a clear parallel between motivating factors (normal financial situation vs normal hormonal situation). We have a clear trend in trauma experiences. We have a clear trend in identifiability of commonalities with perpetrators.

I think in some respects, those who have such trauma reactions have responsibilities to understand that while a "person with a penis" attacked them, this is not that "person with a penis".

First of all, you are conflating poor and black with committing crimes. If the last 6 years have demonstrated nothing, it should be that white people, especially those with any sort of wealth and power are just a lot less likely to be arrested and prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.

Secondly, a large portion of women and girls have experienced some degree of sexual assault at some point in their lives. One in four have been raped. Very few of the survivors of sexual assault are traumatized by seeing men on the streets, in schools and work places, in their homes. Hell, a lot of them still live in the same homes with their rapists. I frequently saw the person who attempted to rape me at family events. So get off that right now.

Being in a dressing room when one is undressed and showering or preparing to shower or getting dressed again and being confronted by someone with a penis in a space that is supposedly for women would be startling for most girls and women, even those who have never experienced sexual assault. It could be quite traumatizing to be so confronted with such an individual when one is in an extremely vulnerable position: unclothed, partially or totally, and in a space where one did not expect to see anyone male.

Do I think this is likely to happen? I would guess--and I certainly do not know this as fact--that most pre or non surgical transwomen would prefer to keep their genitals private as well. This is probably not a very common experience and probably less common would be a trans individual intending harm.

I realize I am talking about a fairly remote possibility but imagine being a survivor of sexual assault, working out at the gym and stepping into the shower only to see someone with a penis standing next to you. Imagine if that were your niece or daughter. It would be upsetting, even if no harm was intended. I'm pretty certain that having women show signs of distress would also upset the trans individual.

Maybe this is just too remote a possibility to be planned for. But at least some women and girls would stop going to gyms and such if they knew that they might encounter an individual with a penis in the locker room.

I'm not interested in curtailing the rights of trans individuals to live their lives as they see fit. But I'm also not interested in seeing women have to further curtail their lives in order to feel safe.

Women and girls are taught explicitly or learn from experience to be constantly vigilant and how to curtail their own behavior in order to avoid attracting unwanted attention or sexual assault. You can try googling it yourself but here's a couple of links that describe every day things that women simply do:

34 Things Women Do To Stay Safe Show The Burden Of 'Being Careful'

34 Things Women Do To Stay Safe Show The Burden Of 'Being Careful'

www.huffpost.com

259 Things Women Do Daily to Avoid Being Assaulted - Girls Gone Strong

With sexual harassment and assault all over the headlines in Hollywood, sports, politics, and fitness, I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic and having lots of conversations about it...

www.girlsgonestrong.com

Please note: I am NOT suggesting that trans people are a threat to anyone else. I am NOT suggesting that trans people should not be able to visit the gyms and restrooms that they feel comfortable in. I AM suggesting that some thought needs to be given to how to preserve the sense of safety and even modesty that women need to use gyms and similar public spaces.

Having frankly seen more than enough violence in my life, I don't like dining in restaurants where people are open-carrying firearms, even if they are police. Should they all be forced to eat in private booths so as to spare me the worry? I am not sure "comfort" and "rights" should be balanced against one another in such a fashion.

Personally, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to open carry, period.

Second: Are you naked in these restaurants?

Finally: Should not everyone be able to expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms? I know that Roe v Wade has been trashed but shouldn't we all have some right to privacy?

I'm pretty certain that if I were to walk into your shower at whatever gym you use, you'd be at the very least quite startled, even if I am a short, fat, old woman. Your immediate reaction might be to grab a towel. You'd probably contact management to see if someone should check on the obviously demented old lady who wandered into the men's locker room. If management threw up its hands and said there was nothing they could do, you might change gyms. Or maybe you'd learn to live with it.

Editing to add: For myself, I don't think it would bother me a lot if someone I knew was trans and in possession of a penis and/or testicles was in the same dressing room as myself. But I also think about my daughter, who lives in a big city, and who sometimes has to endure a lot of...unpleasantness from men on public streets. I think about the fact that she carries her keys in a certain way, carries pepper spray, carries a loud whistle. I think about the winter when she was still living in this college town and dressed the entire winter in the same pair of grubby baggy sweat pants, a men's winter jacket, boys' galoshes, and did not wear any make up or even really comb her hair and eventually stopped going out with friends because she was so tired of being hit on by random men. I think about promising my father that I would only stop at McDonalds to go to the bathroom on the 500 mile car trip home.

Read the links in my post above. This is how women live. And no, it's not enough to be protected from sexual assault.


I more than realize that the chances that someone will go into a women's locker room with any nefarious intentions are quite small. Individual showers/dressing rooms should be sufficient. Individuals with penises should definitely use them. Of course, that makes providing locker rooms for women more expensive. And that definitely is used as a reason not to accommodate women.

 

[Politesse]

Finally: Should not everyone be able to expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms?

You mean, "the majority", right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We need to learn to live with it. But that'll require a great deal of time. Also trust. Ultimately it should be based on identity and behavior. Lesbians aren't required to have their own changing room. But if one was observed enjoying the view, there would probably be consequences.

Accommodating the rights of transgenders in the locker is tricky because it isn't what we are used to and even when given time, it will never become something that is common, with transgenders not being a particularly common percent of the population.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Finally: Should not everyone be able to expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms?

You mean, "the majority", right?

I think Toni means each individual. Let's not pretend the situation isn't different or difficult.

 

[Toni]

Finally: Should not everyone be able to expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms?

You mean, "the majority", right?

No, I mean EVERYONE.