Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[TomC]

Come to think of it, my great grandmother would have been pretty goddamned upset if she had walked into a gym locker room and found white and black women changing together.

Playing the race card is starting to look like Godwin's Law.

If you don't like something because it interferes with your preferences, compare it to Jim Crow.
Tom

If it's invalid show what's wrong, don't simply attack it. Nobody's even tried to show what's wrong with the comparison--which strongly suggests we are right.

It's kinda strange explaining something that seems so obvious to me.

There's no inherent difference between black people and white people. The differences that exist are entirely cultural. The differences between men and women are hard wired instincts.

Frankly, I don't like anyone close when I'm at an ATM. But I'd have less trouble with a professionally dressed black guy than a scruffy white dude. It's just being rational. Dress matters more than race.

Men are the more threatening sex. Across the board, men are more physically dangerous than women. Especially when it comes to sexual threats. That's why women have a different attitude towards the subject than guys have.
Very different.

Let me try to explain this using @Jarhyn's analogy.

Bob has lived his whole life carrying nothing but a bank card, requiring a PIN. It's not valuable to anyone else. He knows this and he knows that everyone else does too. He's not at much risk of being robbed because nobody wants his card. That knowledge gives him great freedom.

The whole culture and infrastructure is built around this assumption. There's nothing in his underwear that anybody wants.

Mary has lived her whole life with a big wad of cash in her underwear. She cannot leave it at home. She, and all her forebears since forever, know this and so does everyone else. The culture and infrastructure are built around this inescapable limitation on Mary. The risk she carries simply because she has a vagina. We do our best to give her a safe and secure environment.

The fact is, Mary is at more risk of sexual assault while home alone, than Bob is staggering around the parking lot of a seedy bar.

A bunch of guys who think women are being silly because women don't want guys in the restroom should give it a rest.

Y'all are being idiots.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Here’s the thing: The presence of someone in the women’s locker room or shower does NOT mean they are a woman. It should, but it does not.

If anyone could tell me how a cis woman would know that the naked person with a penis standing next to her in the shower is a trans woman, I’d be very interested and very grateful.

 

[bilby]

What about countries that have coed locker rooms? Are there some statistics on those?

Here’s a discussion I found: https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like

From posts in your link, people don't seem to have a problem with it. This makes me wonder if it's an American worry or even a uniquely American difference in crime rate, like with guns. This is one reason I wondered about statistics. You would think that coed locker rooms make crime rate go up, but maybe the societies where they have them have more sex/sex is less taboo/or some other differences such that sex crimes are less. I think I read they have these in Japan and Netherlands. Both have low rates of sex crimes, for example. What is at play here?

I strongly suspect that this is yet another example of how religion gets everything wrong.

The Christian (and therefore American) solutions to all problems even tangentially related to sexual behaviour, are not only ineffective, but directly counterproductive.

Societies that treat nudity as inherently sexual, and sexual behaviour as inherently shameful and therefore to be kept to an absolute minimum, practiced only in private, and never discussed (particularly not with children), other than by the completely unhelpful and unhealthy command to abstain from everything and anything even vaguely sexual, inevitably produce citizens who don't really understand sex at all, don't have any useful guidance on how to express their sexual desires or urges responsibly and in ways that don't harm others, and don't even view tolerance of perfectly normal sexual expression as acceptable and polite behaviour.

Puritans are the weirdoes in this regard, and they have stamped their weirdness on the USA, and to a far lesser extent on the UK, to the point that citizens of those nations largely view puritanical craziness as the norm, to be used as a benchmark for how people ought to behave.

Suppression of sexual urges doesn't make them go away, it just forces them into paths of least resistance. If you are successful in stopping people from masturbating, and you are successful in limiting their opportunities for consensual sex, you are setting up an environment in which sexual assault and rape are inevitable.

A relaxed indifference to nakedness, a lack of proscriptions against harmless sexual behaviours (including masturbation and consensual sex), provision of factually correct education to ensure that consent is informed, and that all parties understand how to effectively protect themselves against both unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, and the provision of easy access to contraception, is an incredibly effective defence against essentially all of the various harms (from unwanted pregnancy through to aggravated rape) that arise when these things are either not provided, or (as is the case in Christian dominated areas) actively prohibited.

Of course there will still be problems in such a society. But the Christian "solutions" inevitably (and frankly unsurprisingly) make those problems much worse.

 

[Toni]

Yes, exposing your naked self is legally considered assault. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Klan robe scenario unless you are talking about your own fantasies.

The Klan robe bit was showing a very offensive view. We have no legal protection against seeing things that offend us.

No, me seeing penises in random public places or in situations where I expected that there would be penises did not cause me any harm.

Yes, being surprised by a naked body with a penis in a women only space IS the issue.

No it is NOT reasonable to expect women to just assume that the naked stranger next to them in the shower is a trans woman and no threat to them.

No it is not reasonable to expect women to be ok with some naked stranger with a penis to see them undressed in a shower or locker room and to make the assumption that it’s only a trans woman and not someone who might be s threat.

You're still only showing that it's wrong because we don't do it.

What kind of obsession do you have with open dressing rooms and showers? Why are private showers and dressing rooms not perfectly reasonable?

I'm fine with private stalls. Where I have a problem is when the whole area is segregated--what is someone trans supposed to do? What is someone with an opposite-sex caregiver supposed to do? (I have experienced the latter. My in-laws ran into the problem repeatedly.)

Again: I certainly am NOT talking about being offended. I do not find anything about the human body offensive, although I do think that some things people might choose to do with their own human body to be offensive (crapping on the dinner table, for example is not just unhygienic but also offensive). Walking about with your genitals exposed (any genitals) is often but not always offensive, depending on the circumstances and sometimes is indicative of acute intoxication or acute mental illness. Not always, of course. Sometimes, walking around with your genitals exposed is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Context matters.

I'm talking about something that YOU do NOT have any experience with and apparently are incapable of having anything resembling empathy with: Women are constantly in some state of surveillance of their surroundings and of their own appearance and behavior, looking out for danger. Most of us can keep that need for surveillance to a minimum in most circumstances but yes, women are more attuned to signs of danger for themselves and for any offspring they might have. It's hardwired into us by nature and society has taught us that we must constantly monitor our surroundings, our dress, our behavior because if we make any kind of mistake, however innocent, we might be attacked and if we are attacked, every single thing about our dress, our behavior, our surroundings will be used against us in a court of law, if it gets that far. Most of the time, it does not get that far, even if it is reported, which most of the time it is not.

This is not a burden that you ever have to consider or bear and it is clearly a burden you do not have any ability to empathize with. You seem to conflate your feelings and your experiences and your beliefs and insecurities with universal and completely rational. You're wrong.

You seem to believe that all women should simply be OK with having to make the instantaneous evaluation of a naked stranger in a dressing room or shower while they, themselves, are naked and correctly coming up with the evaluation that this is obviously a trans woman who is of course no threat to them at all. I suppose in your POV, this would include if the naked individual was showing (however involuntary) signs of sexual arousal. Because of course women know that men never, ever, ever intrude on women when they are expecting privacy and are not fully clothed.* *Sarcasm because of course women know that they can be attacked anywhere at any time, whatever they are wearing or doing and even if there are other people around.

No one can make such judgments immediately and no one should be expected to do so. It is arrogant and callous for men to expect women to immediately accept any individual in their dressing rooms and showers and to know that they are in no danger whatsoever from naked strangers with penises and have no need to feel modest, either.

Thank you for bringing up a situation I had not mentioned when having private stalls would be extremely helpful: when one needs to aid someone who needs help dressing, toileting, showering.

Are you ever going to address why you believe that you speak for all women, and that civil rights advocates are men? It seems most unjustified and unjustifiable to me.

Who the fuck ever said that I think I speak for all women? Much less that civil rights advocates are men? AFAIK, women tend to be much more liberal with respect to gay rights, trans rights, and civil rights compared with men.

That said, I think I am much more well informed with how women in general feel about being confronted with a naked stranger with a penis in a space where they do not expect to see one.

If a naked person, with or without a penis, were to walk into your classroom and take a seat in the front row, I am willing to bet that you would be startled, concerned and probably call whoever is in charge of safety on your campus. Because you would not expect to see a naked stranger in your classroom.

Very few women expect to see naked strangers with penises in the women's locker room. Why is that hard to understand?

All you speak of when you speak of how people feel when they see people in a space who look some way they do not expect, is that you speak for people who are feel violated in the violation of their PREJUDICE. There is no running away from that while advocating for now people are violated by seeing something unexpected.

The prejudice is baked right into the expectation!

It is a judgement that this anatomy means they are going to act as a criminal.

It is not OK.

The holding of the expectation is prejudice. They are already prejudiced by the time they hold and have the expectation even before that expectation is violated.

Quit expecting trans people to be OK with prejudice.

Quit expecting cis women to instantaneously recognize pre/non-surgical trans women standing next to them in the shower as trans women!

Unless you can tell me HOW to know that the person next to you is a woman.

 

[Bomb#20]

Come to think of it, my great grandmother would have been pretty goddamned upset if she had walked into a gym locker room and found white and black women changing together.

Playing the race card is starting to look like Godwin's Law.

If you don't like something because it interferes with your preferences, compare it to Jim Crow.
Tom

Pretty much. So we might as well just get it over with and go there. Female-only places for women's personal needs are Czechoslovakia. The whole male-dominated part of the world is Germany. The few percent of women's single-sex spaces being used by pre- and post-op transsexuals are the Sudetenland. The intact males (some of whom identify as women and some of whom don't) who mean to go into the places for women's personal needs and take control of them while having no intention of getting sex-change operations are the Wehrmacht. And the "trans allies" arguing to let them do it because it's for the sake of protection of transsexuals' rights and it won't do any harm to cis women are Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich bringing Peace For Our Time. We know how it ended last time -- the Sudetenland was somebody's "last territorial demand"; six months later Germany gobbled up all of Czechoslovakia. We know how it will end this time -- we're already seeing European countries making all public bathrooms "gender neutral". The male-female border was not crossed, but erased. What had been "women's rooms" will become just yet another indistinguishable piece of the male-ruled world.

 

[Bomb#20]

Come to think of it, my great grandmother would have been pretty goddamned upset if she had walked into a gym locker room and found white and black women changing together.

Playing the race card is starting to look like Godwin's Law.

If you don't like something because it interferes with your preferences, compare it to Jim Crow.
Tom

Can you think of any other circumstance in which the law attempted to enforce involuntary segregation of bathroom and changing facilities. What other valid comparison could one possibly make? That is by far the most similar historical-legal analogue to the situation we must now adjudicate as a society, and it is inevitable that we'll be discussing it.

So in your analogy with this most similar analogue, anatomically male = black people and anatomically female = white people? So, in this analogy, women's bathrooms are a social convention that was established by the female-supremacist matriarchy, without consulting men, against the wishes of men, for the purpose of excluding oppressed powerless men from the women-only spaces that female rulers regarded as their own?

When you treat discrimination as the only salient feature of the situation, and sweep the correlation between categorization and power under the rug, you are implicitly arguing that affirmative action is racist. Do you in fact think affirmative action is racist?

If you don't like something because it interferes with your preferences, compare it to Jim Crow.
Tom

If it's invalid show what's wrong, don't simply attack it. Nobody's even tried to show what's wrong with the comparison--which strongly suggests we are right.

This is not our first rodeo. What's wrong with the comparison was explained last year in the "Male patients asked if they are pregnant at NHS Trust" thread. Just because you haven't seen your argument refuted doesn't mean nobody's even tried to show what's wrong with it.

(Of course there's no reason to expect you to be convinced by the refutation -- IIRC you actually do think affirmative action is racist. But of all the people here telling women they're just prejudiced and they just need to get over it and just stop objecting to strange men seeing them undressed, I'll bet you're the only one who doesn't support affirmative action.)

 

[bilby]

we're already seeing European countries making all public bathrooms "gender neutral".

As far as I'm aware, many European countries never routinely segregated public bathrooms.

The closest thing to such segregation in many places was the building of public urinals, which were obviously unsuitable for anyone who wanted to sit down, and so were typically only used by men.

In France and Belgium, such facilities were often located in busy areas, and gave privacy only between chest and knee height, being open and un-roofed.

Certainly it's typical in Brussels to find pubs and bars which have been open for several centuries, and which have never had segregated toilet facilities.

The lack of segregation in European public toilets is not a new thing - and has yet to lead to a massive increase in sexual assaults.

We were "already" seeing it in the Middle Ages. Those "Trans allies" have either been around for a lot longer than I thought, or have successfully constructed a time machine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because that’s just inconceivable to nearly all other men.

I, too, find it impossible to understand. I kinda get FtM, obviously being a dude is better. But I don't have to understand it in order to grasp that other people can do whatever they want, if it doesn't involve me. I don't understand why guys get so excited about hunting or football either.
Tom

What about when it DOES involve you? What about when you end up with a cluster of female appearing, female-bodied, undeniably female people crashing your locker room and ogling at all of the cocks that surround them?

That would be going over the line, although it's not really all that different than guys staring at Hooters.

Also... try extrapolating from the brain of a straight guy - why on earth might a straight guy want to gain access to female locker rooms and showers? Especially if he doesn't actually have to do anything other than toss on some lipstick and a skirt, and nobody is allowed to challenge his presence in the female showers? Can you conceive of why a heterosexual man, who is normally precluded from seeing naked women against their will, might want to exploit some loopholes so he can see the booties and boobs?

If they're trans I have no problem with requiring an ID showing that. I don't think there should be restrictions on cross-sex caregivers unless they cause trouble.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again: I certainly am NOT talking about being offended. I do not find anything about the human body offensive, although I do think that some things people might choose to do with their own human body to be offensive (crapping on the dinner table, for example is not just unhygienic but also offensive). Walking about with your genitals exposed (any genitals) is often but not always offensive, depending on the circumstances and sometimes is indicative of acute intoxication or acute mental illness. Not always, of course. Sometimes, walking around with your genitals exposed is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Context matters.

You're missing the fact that we generally aren't protected from offensive things.

I'm talking about something that YOU do NOT have any experience with and apparently are incapable of having anything resembling empathy with: Women are constantly in some state of surveillance of their surroundings and of their own appearance and behavior, looking out for danger. Most of us can keep that need for surveillance to a minimum in most circumstances but yes, women are more attuned to signs of danger for themselves and for any offspring they might have. It's hardwired into us by nature and society has taught us that we must constantly monitor our surroundings, our dress, our behavior because if we make any kind of mistake, however innocent, we might be attacked and if we are attacked, every single thing about our dress, our behavior, our surroundings will be used against us in a court of law, if it gets that far. Most of the time, it does not get that far, even if it is reported, which most of the time it is not.

And you still haven't established that nudity has anything to do with the actual threat. Keeping reiterating that there is a threat doesn't change this lacking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is FUCKING NOT the same situation. Which you would realize if you woke up and found a naked stranger with a penis in your bedroom.

What you are saying is that women have no reason to fear persons with penises and it is ridiculous to fear persons with penises if they are standing next to you, both of you naked. Fucking bullshit. Which you would realize if you EVER would have to deal with the situation yourself. Which you will not unless you wake up and find a naked stranger with a penis standing over you. But then, you have a gun, probably in your night stand. So it would be a double experiment: How does Loren react to being suddenly confronted by a naked stranger with a penis when he does not expect it and is in a vulnerable position? AND how good is Loren with his firearms?

You continue to appear to be unable to distinguish public situations from private situations. I would have a big problem with waking up to anybody other than my wife in my bedroom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

AFAIKT, no one is talking about outlawing trans people

Oh? Because in some places you're basically saying trans people don't dare go out. You're worried about a phantom risk (the data shows no increase in offenses in such spaces) and condemning them to what in places is a major risk.

The entire key to this is naturally expected. Context is everything.

And if they're allowed there they would be expected--your argument falls apart.

I certainly do NOT wish to outlaw trans individuals and in fact, I do want them to feel safe, happy, healthy, etc. But nope, I do not trust that I would not be startled or alarmed and confused if I saw a naked stranger with a penis in the women's locker room or shower, especially if I were myself naked. I am pretty certain I would immediately cover up and leave and then speak with management. I would be very unlikely to return if I were told that was something I should simply expect. I am guessing I would feel differently if this were someone I already knew and was aware that they were a pre/non-surgical trans woman. Because I would not be so surprised at finding that person in a female only space. Depending on how well I knew the person, I might not even be uncomfortable but I think I'd probably have to know them fairly well.

Want them to feel safe? No--your position is going to get them murdered.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's funny, I don't think it would ever have occurred to anyone to legislate who was or wasn't allowed to use the loo, before all of this atarted. But because conservatives started a fight, within twenty or thirty years the Supreme Court will be forced to rule in favor of a law requiring people not to discriminate in the bathroom. A decision that will not be popular, because most people feel like you do. What was voluntarily will become legal matter, and it will ultimately upset and inconvenience cis people a lot more than it will trans folks, most of whom already avoid zones of likely persecution whenever possible.

Actually, it did occur to some people much longer ago than that. There are places that have had trans access a lot longer. Just because they weren't in the US doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is also not permissible or acceptable to expect women to instantaneously recognize that the naked stranger with a penis beside them in the shower or locker room is of no threat to them.

Because in almost every single circumstance and certainly in likely every single previous circumstance when a woman is confronted with a naked adult stranger with a penis, there IS an intended threat to her safety.

Refusing to recognize that reality is reprehensible.

Note: my position is to advocate for universal stalls with doors in all locker rooms and showers.

Self-fulfilling prophecy problem--if it's not legal for said penis to be there then it's a strong indication of a criminal. If it is legal, however, it doesn't mean they're a criminal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Am I the only person who remembers the outrage at women sports reporters expecting to be in dressing rooms of male athletes, alongside their male counterparts?

I do remember that debate quite well, and my opinion on it was exactly the same: the law has no business discriminating on the basis of sex. Allow all reporters in, or none of them.

Exactly. My position was that NO ONE should be expected to tolerate press while they are showering or dressing.

That would be fair--but that wasn't the status quo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What about countries that have coed locker rooms? Are there some statistics on those?

Here’s a discussion I found: https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like

And note that pretty much everyone is saying it's a non-issue.
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like

And this: https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ool-Restroom-and-Locker-Room-Restrictions-and

None of this should be any surprise: where unisex facilities are the norm, there seems to be more comfort in using such facilities even fir those most accustomed to segregated sites

Exactly--the problem is one of perceptions.

Non-fender confirming, transgender individuals and gay individuals are at significant risk of sexual assault.

Women and girls are at significant risk of sexual assault in coed facilities.

You haven't established this claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What about countries that have coed locker rooms? Are there some statistics on those?

Here’s a discussion I found: https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like

From posts in your link, people don't seem to have a problem with it. This makes me wonder if it's an American worry or even a uniquely American difference in crime rate, like with guns. This is one reason I wondered about statistics. You would think that coed locker rooms make crime rate go up, but maybe the societies where they have them have more sex/sex is less taboo/or some other differences such that sex crimes are less. I think I read they have these in Japan and Netherlands. Both have low rates of sex crimes, for example. What is at play here?

It's prudes having a problem with it, there's no inherent problem. It works fine in societies where people don't freak out about it.

 

[Toni]

Again: I certainly am NOT talking about being offended. I do not find anything about the human body offensive, although I do think that some things people might choose to do with their own human body to be offensive (crapping on the dinner table, for example is not just unhygienic but also offensive). Walking about with your genitals exposed (any genitals) is often but not always offensive, depending on the circumstances and sometimes is indicative of acute intoxication or acute mental illness. Not always, of course. Sometimes, walking around with your genitals exposed is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Context matters.

You're missing the fact that we generally aren't protected from offensive things.

I'm talking about something that YOU do NOT have any experience with and apparently are incapable of having anything resembling empathy with: Women are constantly in some state of surveillance of their surroundings and of their own appearance and behavior, looking out for danger. Most of us can keep that need for surveillance to a minimum in most circumstances but yes, women are more attuned to signs of danger for themselves and for any offspring they might have. It's hardwired into us by nature and society has taught us that we must constantly monitor our surroundings, our dress, our behavior because if we make any kind of mistake, however innocent, we might be attacked and if we are attacked, every single thing about our dress, our behavior, our surroundings will be used against us in a court of law, if it gets that far. Most of the time, it does not get that far, even if it is reported, which most of the time it is not.

And you still haven't established that nudity has anything to do with the actual threat. Keeping reiterating that there is a threat doesn't change this lacking.

You continue to ignore that this is not about being offended. I'm not offended by nudity or by penises. I would not be offended to find a naked stranger with a penis standing next to me in a women's locker room. I would be alarmed.

I don't know what kind of joy you get out of pretending that this is about women being prudish and offended by male nudity but I consider it to be your own personal form of masturbation and so I will leave you to it without further participation on my part.

 

[Toni]

It is FUCKING NOT the same situation. Which you would realize if you woke up and found a naked stranger with a penis in your bedroom.

What you are saying is that women have no reason to fear persons with penises and it is ridiculous to fear persons with penises if they are standing next to you, both of you naked. Fucking bullshit. Which you would realize if you EVER would have to deal with the situation yourself. Which you will not unless you wake up and find a naked stranger with a penis standing over you. But then, you have a gun, probably in your night stand. So it would be a double experiment: How does Loren react to being suddenly confronted by a naked stranger with a penis when he does not expect it and is in a vulnerable position? AND how good is Loren with his firearms?

You continue to appear to be unable to distinguish public situations from private situations. I would have a big problem with waking up to anybody other than my wife in my bedroom.

No, you seem unable to discern the difference between expected and unexpected encounters with naked strangers, in this particular case, women encountering naked strangers with penises in womens's locker rooms. Women do NOT expect to encounter naked strangers with penises in women's locker rooms.

Since I don't think you are actually stupid, I will simply consider this willful on your part and treat it accordingly.

 

[Toni]

AFAIKT, no one is talking about outlawing trans people

Oh? Because in some places you're basically saying trans people don't dare go out. You're worried about a phantom risk (the data shows no increase in offenses in such spaces) and condemning them to what in places is a major risk.

The entire key to this is naturally expected. Context is everything.

And if they're allowed there they would be expected--your argument falls apart.

I certainly do NOT wish to outlaw trans individuals and in fact, I do want them to feel safe, happy, healthy, etc. But nope, I do not trust that I would not be startled or alarmed and confused if I saw a naked stranger with a penis in the women's locker room or shower, especially if I were myself naked. I am pretty certain I would immediately cover up and leave and then speak with management. I would be very unlikely to return if I were told that was something I should simply expect. I am guessing I would feel differently if this were someone I already knew and was aware that they were a pre/non-surgical trans woman. Because I would not be so surprised at finding that person in a female only space. Depending on how well I knew the person, I might not even be uncomfortable but I think I'd probably have to know them fairly well.

Want them to feel safe? No--your position is going to get them murdered.

No, I'm NOT in any way, shape or form in favor of outlawing or disapproving of or shaming trans individuals. I am for allowing EVERYONE, including trans people, to feel safe in sex segregated locker rooms. Maybe you should contemplate why gay men, trans individuals and generally speaking queer people are afraid to use men's facilities. Here's a hint: It's because MEN are often violent towards gay men, transgender individuals and anyone on the LGBTQIA range. Maybe YOU need to address your own queer phobia and encourage other cis males to be more accepting and certainly far less violent. The world would be a much better place if men learned to deal with their fears and their anger without being violent.

I know that you are absolutely allergic to reading links but I did link an article upthread that indicates that in fact, there are more acts of violence against women in facilities that are unisex or mix men with women. Maybe consider actually doing a little reading. Or thinking. Either would be a novelty.

 

[Toni]

It is also not permissible or acceptable to expect women to instantaneously recognize that the naked stranger with a penis beside them in the shower or locker room is of no threat to them.

Because in almost every single circumstance and certainly in likely every single previous circumstance when a woman is confronted with a naked adult stranger with a penis, there IS an intended threat to her safety.

Refusing to recognize that reality is reprehensible.

Note: my position is to advocate for universal stalls with doors in all locker rooms and showers.

Self-fulfilling prophecy problem--if it's not legal for said penis to be there then it's a strong indication of a criminal. If it is legal, however, it doesn't mean they're a criminal.

You obviously do not know or understand what a self fulfilling prophecy is. Nor do you understand relevance.

Most men are not rapists but some are rapists. It is very difficult/impossible to know simply by sight which are and which are not rapists. One must evaluate behavior. Encountering a naked stranger with a penis standing next to you in a woman's shower would be one indication that there is someone who does not belong there because it is absolutely impossible to know immediately if the naked stranger with a penis is actually a trans woman who has no intention of causing harm or a rapist. If you know a way to immediately tell, you would be doing the world a favor by sharing your methods.

BTW, why should pre/non-surgical trans women feel unsafe in a men's locker room?