Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Toni]

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.

Too bad you don't really read everything:
I posted this in the post you quoted but obviously you did NOT read the link:

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

www.independent.co.uk

Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.

Unisex facilities account for less than half the changing areas across the UK, but the number is on the rise - doing away with separate male and female changing rooms and toilets is seen as a way to cut staff costs and better cater for transgender people.

Further, for every single one of those situations where people were perfectly fine using unisex facilities, they KNEW THEY WERE UNISEX before they went in. No one was surprised to find a naked stranger with opposite gender genitalia standing next to them. Which you would have recognized if you read with comprehension instead of skimming to have your own prejudices confirmed.

 

[Toni]

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.

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.

Too bad you don't really read everything:
I posted this in the post you quoted but obviously you did NOT read the link:

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

www.independent.co.uk

Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.

Unisex facilities account for less than half the changing areas across the UK, but the number is on the rise - doing away with separate male and female changing rooms and toilets is seen as a way to cut staff costs and better cater for transgender people.

Further, for every single one of those situations where people were perfectly fine using unisex facilities, they KNEW THEY WERE UNISEX before they went in. No one was surprised to find a naked stranger with opposite gender genitalia standing next to them. Which you would have recognized if you read with comprehension instead of skimming to have your own prejudices confirmed.

Oh fucking bullshit Loren. YOU are the only one who thinks this is about being prudish. It's about whether or not women have the right to feel safe in women's locker rooms. I think they do. All of them. Including trans women. Who apparently are not safe in men's locker rooms because (some) men are intolerant violent creeps.

 

[repoman]

Toni, I thtnk you are forgetting that there is a very large fraction of MTF (transitioned or not) transgenders that are sexually attracted to women. For some reason many assume that all MTF are attracted to men.



This makes you line of reasoning about individual stalls even more sensible.

Some here (deep in their conscience it may be bad faith) will argue that female attracted MTFs don't change anything.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I don't think anyone can know which gender it is better to be. I do agree that it's a case of to each their own. What you've got in your pants or who you have in your bedroom is only relevant to someone interested in being said bedroom.

I very strongly disagree. In fact, this premise, this "sex only matters if you're interested in fucking someone" seems to be a privilege of men.

People can dress and present however they want - I truly do not care. People can take on whatever gender roles they want - I'd be tickled if more men took on the dishes, the laundry, and the childcare duties while women took on more CEO and political roles. That would be awesome.

But sex matters a whole hell of a fuck lot more than your blithe and thoughtless dismissal would imply.

Sex matters out in public when I get my period unexpectedly (thanks perimenopausal sysndrome) and need to find a place to deal with that in private so I don't bleed through my pants. It matters when I have more work than time and I have to deal with meetings while in immense pain from menstrual cramps. It matters when I go to the doctor - any doctor, not just gynecologists. It matters when a doctor is evaluating which anti-seizure and anti-migraine meds are most likely to work well while my hormones go on a roller coaster ride. Sex fucking matters when I'm trying to figure out a birth control method that works reliably because oral contraceptives are strongly recommended against because of my migraines and seizures. It matters when I want to take a shower at the gym and I don't want some random male stranger seeing me naked. It matters when I'm evaluating the risk I face walking to my car from the office at night when I've run late and I need to traverse the parking garage. It matters when I want to go for an early morning jog and I'm deciding whether to stay my course or take a different route because there's an unknown man hanging out along the path that goes through the trees. It matters when I'm at a club and some dude will not leave me alone and keeps imposing his larger-stronger-faster body between me and where I want to go and tries to get me cornered so he can keep hitting on me. It matters when I want to play tennis and the only available competitor is a man. Or when I'd like to play volleyball, but the opposing team is all male.

Your careless presumption that "sex only matters for fucking" is a clear indication of your own privileged position as a man, in a male dominated society. All you're really communicating is "Sex only matters to ME when I want to get laid, therefore, because it's not important to ME, it should not be important to YOU".

 

[Toni]

Toni, I thtnk you are forgetting that there is a very large fraction of MTF (transitioned or not) transgenders that are sexually attracted to women. For some reason many assume that all MTF are attracted to men.



This makes you line of reasoning about individual stalls even more sensible.

Some here (deep in their conscience it may be bad faith) will argue that female attracted MTFs don't change anything.

I'm aware that at some transwomen are attracted to other women. I think that if the naked stranger with a penis showed signs of sexual arousal in a shower standing next to most women, it would make it more difficult for the other woman to determine that the naked stranger with an erect penis standing next to her in the shower meant her no harm. Fact is that there are plenty of cis women who are attracted to other women, as well. Usually the attraction is less obvious and easier to go unnoticed by others.

I take very, very seriously the fact that many gay, non-gendercomforming and queer people do not feel safe in public dressing rooms or showers. I can well understand and totally sympathize with everyone here who shared that they felt unsafe in showers in gym class at school or at the Y or other gym/locker room situation. Which is one of the reasons that I suggested that there be private stalls with doors in ALL such facilities. EVERYONE should be able to be in a locker room and shower and feel safe and comfortable and accepted.

Of course it would be absolutely wonderful if women did not have to worry about being sexually assaulted. It would be absolutely wonderful if men didn't have to worry about being sexually assaulted and if individuals who don't identify as male or female did not have to worry about being sexually assaulted and of course the same thing for every single human being no matter their body type, sexuality, gender identity, etc. Or assaulted or ridiculed or in any way made to feel unsafe.

Of course it would be much better, much healthier if we all accepted everyone else's body and our own body as being fine, just like Mr. Rogers said we should. My observation is that some people are more naturally shy about their bodies and some people are less shy or not at all shy and anything in between---and this variation is found among siblings from at least toddlerhood onwards. And doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with how they are raised, if my own family is any indication. It would also be great if people accepted other people's boundaries and didn't try to cross them.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah--the issue is whether deviations from that baseline are an issue or not. I don't care how many standard deviations away it is, just whether it causes harm to society. Things like sexual alignment and gender can be an issue for the person but they do no harm to anyone else.

It rather depends on the situation, doesn't it? And the policy - which is the heart of the issue.

If a man feels like a woman and wears female-typical clothes, and uses a female-typical name... I truly don't care. It's irrelevant to me. It does no harm to anyone.

When a man declares that he feels like a woman, and on the basis of that declaration alone gets placed in a shared cell with a woman, in a female prison ward, then goes on to RAPE HER... I'd say it's done some harm, wouldn't you?

Or is the harm done to women by giving males the right by law to disregard and violate female boundaries a harm you think is perfectly fine for women to have to bear?

 

[Emily Lake]

As a result one will see peaks on the multidimensional graph of quanta, and their expression.

What quanta are you measuring? And one what scale?

I see a lot of posts claiming gender is not real and that transmen are "women", and that transwomen are "men" coming from Metaphor.

They have a fundamental issue with demanding trans people abandon the core of their gender identity. This is "having a problem with trans people" with regards to "their gender identity expression".

Nah. I will very happily say that transmen are women and transwomen are men. By women I mean adult females of the human species; by men I mean adult males of the human species. That's simply truth.

I have no problem saying transmen are women who live as if they were men to the best of their ability, and vice versa for transwomen. I have no problem saying transmen are transmen and transwomen are transwoman. Or that transmen are transgender identified females and transwomen are transgender identified males.

But the religious catechism that transwomen are women is an abuse of language. It intentionally replaces a figurative meaning for a literal meaning, then expects people to go along with it and believe that the figurative has been transformed to literal. And in doing so, it denies the reality and experience of sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Hey ladies - listen up. A MAN has declared that we should not be intimidated by the presence of strange men while we're vulnerable, because IF that man doesn't intend harm then we might hurt his feelings. It's unfair for women to seek to protect ourselves from harm because it might hurt the feelings of a man.

Really, women taking steps to avoid being harmed is just as bad as racism. In the name of inclusivity, women shoud allow ALL men to see them naked and to be around them when they're vulnerable.... and well, if something actually DOES happen, oh well, too bad. That's just the way it is.

It's like this particular male genuinely has no clue how incredibly disproportionate sexual assault and harassment statistics are, and how persistent throughout history, and across cultures. It's almost like this particular male gives zero fucks about whether or not some females get hurt, as long as men aren't made unhappy.

Men's feelings appear to matter more than women's safety and wellbeing.


Here, let's give this a go from another angle.

Let's look at locked doors from the perspective of people who DID NOT rob houses. I mean, it's just irrational for people to lock their doors - they're denying entrance to all those people who might want to come in but who don't INTEND to steal anything! Really, locking your door is just rank bigotry.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I'll echo this, but I'm probably going to go a step further than what you might agree with.

I will say that most transwomen are not a threat to other people. But... transwomen are MALES. And to the extent that I think sex-separated spaces where women and girls are naked or vulnerable should remain SEX separated. And that a person's internal belief about their identity cannot and should not be given precedence over the reality of their sex.

And the sad and lamentable situation we're in right now is that policies in place in several countries and states now allow ANY MALE AT ALL to claim a transgender identity, and then be granted the right to ignore female boundaries at will. By law in CA, any male who fills out a piece of paper MUST be allowed entrance to any female-only changing room, restroom, or shower. It is ILLEGAL to keep a man out. It's ILLEGAL even to demand to see paperwork. And that man is not required to take any hormones at all, nor have any surgery, nor have any medical diagnosis or psychiatric treatment of any kind. That man isn't even required to shave or to wear lipstick or in any way at all present as a woman. All he has to do is CLAIM to be transgender.

And by making that claim NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO DENY HIM ACCESS TO NAKED WOMEN AND GIRLS AT HIS WHIM.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Re: your first link:

"But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."

So responded Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier to a 1950s suggestion that fewer women would be assaulted if all were asked to stay inside.

This is really quite analogous to some of the dynamics today. Transgender identified males want access to women's restrooms and showers and other places where women and girls are vulnerable or exposed. And women are being told that if they don't like it... they can line up and use the single-service space. ALL of the women are being disadvantaged by a single male who wants access to a female space. It's very much analogous to telling women that if they want to avoid being assaulted they should just stay home. Or you know, they shouldn't wear such a short skirt.

It places the burden on women to either exclude themselves from equal participation in society or to set aside all reasonable boundaries and requirement for consent.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's funny, because the anti-trans crowd usually has no compunctions whatsoever about imposing their binary perspective on past cultures.

Calling those of us who oppose self-id as the metric for policy "anti-trans" is pretty much exactly like callings someone "pro-abortion" instead of pro-choice.

I'm not at all anti-trans. I have several transgender friends and a couple of relatives. I admire several transgender people.

I am, however, anti-self-declared-inner-brain-state-overriding-sex-based-rights-and-protections-for-adult-human-females.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Always. It's always men who say asinine shit like this. It's always men who dismiss the concerns and experiences of women. It's always men who insist that despite the overwhelming statistical evidence that men are a risk to women... women should just shut up, know their place, and not inconvenience men in any way.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

You mean, "the majority", right?

Who do you think should NOT expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms?

 

[Emily Lake]

Policies that target minorities as though they were a dangerous outgroup do not make them "feel safe", as a general rule.

Serious question for you: who makes transgender people feel unsafe? Specifically, what makes transgender identified males feel unsafe in male restrooms and showers?

 

[ZiprHead]

Met's use of the phrase "thought in their head" is because so many people in this thread have decided that they are completely on board with accepting a person's declared gender soul as overriding observable fact. People in this thread seem dedicated to developing and supporting policies that revere the souls of some special people and elevate them above normal mortals, indeed going so far as to place those special gender-souled people into spaces that put mere female mortals at increased risk.

Frankly I have spoken very little on the topic of certain people in certain spaces. I totally agree it's a sensitive topic and I have expressed support for the women here who are uncomfortable with it. I only take issue with the anti-trans bigotry and the anti-science stance that genitals are the end all/be all of our human nature.

I object to that religion. If you label me heretic for rejecting your faith-based dogma, so be it. I've been a heretic my whole life. I will very happily hold on to science and facts and continue to argue that policy and society should place objective facts above wishes and belief.

You're science and facts are quite limited on this subject and seem to be so due to your wishes and belief.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why should a person who is male on the outside, female on the inside, feel unsafe in a men's locker room? And should we not necessarily mistake belonging with safety?

Oh, I can understand why they might feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

I can understand it too. It's the same reason that women feel uncomfortable having a male around when we're naked or vulnerable or exposed.

What I don't understand is why women should be expected to drop all of their boundaries, have all concept of consent removed... in order to accommodate a small subset of men who are at risk from other men.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You mean: women need to learn to live with it.

If we are saying a person's gender is defined by more than merely genitalia all the while including a "but", we'll need to determine where this definition applies and where it doesn't. Where are they going to be judged on dangly bits verses where they'll be judged by the character and identity. And then later ask ourselves if these boundaries make sense.

So, yes, you mean women need to learn to live with it.

It seems it's always men telling women that they just need to get over it, stop being so hysterical, and give way to other men.

 

[Emily Lake]

Women are expected to make accommodations, to understand. To be ok with being made uncomfortable. We just need to get over it.

The casual dismissal of women's concerns and feelings on this subject is extremely masculine, don't you think?

It sure looks that way to me.

Like it or not, men have a long history of being vastly more pervy and rapey than women. We, as a group, are a much bigger threat to women than vice versa. This despite the fact that 90% of us are far too well socialized to be any threat at all. Women have a deeply ingrained and very reasonable insecurity about having men in a few places, like public restrooms. Pretending that women are being unreasonable by wanting a man-free place for some personal business is rather the epitome of the culture of entitlement and victimhood.
Tom

Also... if 90% of men are well socialized and no threat at all, that still means that 1 in every 10 men we interact with IS a threat.

I don't like those odds. And I don't think men on the whole would be willing to take on much lower odds if it were THEY'RE safety and boundaries in question.

 

[Emily Lake]

That women are generally going to be the fuzzier side of the lollipop really can't be avoided. It is what it is.

You - a man - feel justified making the declaration that it's fine if women are the ones who are going to get fucked over by promoting the interests of a subset of men over the safety and dignity of women.

"It is what it is"

Well gee, thank you Mr. Man, for explaing to us poor widdle wadies that it's okay if we face a greater risk and get fucked over by this.

I mean, after all, it's completely out of the question to expect MEN to accommodate gender non-conforming males in their spaces. That's just way too much to ask of men to stop attacking other men.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fuzzier side of the lollipop?

Wrong end of the stick.

Basically, Jimmy is acknowledging that women are going to be the ones who get fucked over, but HE's okay with that. It's no big deal to him if WOMEN get fucked over.