Split Trans Issues, Split from Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Are you actually suggesting that women should get into a deep discussion with the male in a female single-sex intimate space before they can take action?

No.

I mean, hey, maybe women should also pause in the dark carpark and engage in a soul-searching conversation with the random male before we can decide whether they might be a risk. Of course, if they actually do mug or abduct or rape or kill us, then we'll have our answer! Women should totally wait until after the harm has occurred, otherwise it's bigoted.

Your bigotry needs no waiting.

It’s not bigotry. You’ve been extremely unclear about these conversations you expect women to have. They are appropriate if you’re planning to date someone but not in the locker room.

And they are not infallible. Otherwise there would be a lot less domestic abuse and date rape

 

[Toni]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality: it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

I want to be clear here: My uncle never behaved in any way that was remotely inappropriate towards me or by siblings or his children. It was a purely hypothetical situation.

Eventually, I did have to inflict pain on the person who kept assaulting me because avoidance did not work. Later, in other situations, I skipped the avoidance thing and had a personal rule was that after being told Don’t Touch Me twice, I was not holding back. One time, and this was possibly illegal of me to do but I did preemptively threaten to castrate a very large co-worker who started talking about how I had better start being nicer to him. I did not fancy finding myself in the walk in freezer with that creep. He left me alone after that. When I was young, I weighed under 100 lbs on a small frame. I was often underestimated and I took full advantage of that when I needed to. Most of the time I could avoid the creeps.

Yes, vetting would certainly offer a stronger sense of security.

The thing is, other than some gross pushback from Loren on expecting facilities meet standards (oh, the horror), I think we're broadly in agreement on near-term goals and how to accomplish them, and what those expectations can reasonably be said to be.

None of them involve "don't have a penis", and none of them justify "attack Jarhyn's niece without instantly apologizing for it profusely at the mere sight of an ID".

The fact is that if someone's preferred solution is instead to police people coming into the room on the basis of their "perceived femininity", they are asking for enforced sex essentialism.

Personally, I would rather see THAT sort asked to go piss on a tree.

I understand how protective you are of your niece and why but the real position is:

How do I protect myself from sexual assault in the women’s locker room?

How do I know who is trustworthy? Who is or is not a threat? Can I let my 12 year old or 15 year old daughter use the shower at the Y?

Yeah, we’re angry at having to even consider this re: locker rooms/showers.

Just like you’re angry on behalf of your niece and every other person who does not perfectly conform to gender stereotypes.

I truly do not want anyone to have to fear for their safety in a bathroom, dressing room or locker room. Anyone = everyone.

 

[Toni]

What I...

...have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women [do not] need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis [genitals] is...

..Anything other than someone exposing their genitals inappropriately so as to know that they are a pervert and sex offender.

If things are at that point something is already wrong.

(Unless it's a shower, in which case the people who own the shower facility should have already told the person where to go, and the people who use the open nominally nudity-tolerant shower facilities should damn well be willing to tolerate nudity according to the facility's policies; for The Saloon, the policy is "people will look very intently at your junk, and may pay you money for the novelty of it".)

Yeah, generally it’s showers that are the most concerning. Bathrooms? Not so much.

 

[Toni]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality: it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

I want to be clear here: My uncle never behaved in any way that was remotely inappropriate towards me or by siblings or his children. It was a purely hypothetical situation.

Eventually, I did have to inflict pain on the person who kept assaulting me because avoidance did not work. Later, in other situations, I skipped the avoidance thing and had a personal rule was that after being told Don’t Touch Me twice, I was not holding back. One time, and this was possibly illegal of me to do but I did preemptively threaten to castrate a very large co-worker who started talking about how I had better start being nicer to him. I did not fancy finding myself in the walk in freezer with that creep. He left me alone after that. When I was young, I weighed under 100 lbs on a small frame. I was often underestimated and I took full advantage of that when I needed to. Most of the time I could avoid the creeps.

Yes, vetting would certainly offer a stronger sense of security.

The thing is, other than some gross pushback from Loren on expecting facilities meet standards (oh, the horror), I think we're broadly in agreement on near-term goals and how to accomplish them, and what those expectations can reasonably be said to be.

None of them involve "don't have a penis", and none of them justify "attack Jarhyn's niece without instantly apologizing for it profusely at the mere sight of an ID".

The fact is that if someone's preferred solution is instead to police people coming into the room on the basis of their "perceived femininity", they are asking for enforced sex essentialism.

Personally, I would rather see THAT sort asked to go piss on a tree.

I do think you are being overly hard on Emily. And perhaps underestimating the weight of the societal expectation that women and girls simultaneously be pure AND put up with whatever shit men or just some man decides we must endure. And how many men are skeptical of any claim of assault or rape —unless committed by a black man. Who is not an athlete.

It’s exhausting. I have been past the try to be reasonable and accommodating phase of my life for a few decades now. I’ve been at the: How do I protect myself daughter and granddaughter phase for quite a while.

Upthread, I described a hypothetical that you reacted to with such outrage —which was very touching.

But that sort of outrage exactly what is driving my arguments and Emily’s.

People do get traumatized, sometimes early on in life. Expecting them to NOT have a spontaneous, even surprising to them reaction when they are confronted with something unexpected where they believe they are completely safe is just unfair and unrealistic. And not safe for anybody.

I quite like the idea of a facility doing the vetting of trans people so that people using showers/dressing rooms there can feel assured that anyone in the shower room actually belongs there. But even so: stalls with doors are highly desirable.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

????

I don't think you intend to make an argument for excluding trans women but that kind of is an argument for excluding trans women.

I am pointing out that stalls have the same issue.

How? Any time your own clothing is disordered or removed, and you are vulnerable, you are in a private space with a lock on it.

Any time someone else's genitals are legitimately exposed, they are too.

The financial argument doesn't wash. With cubicles, every toilet, shower or change room becomes a unisex. Cheaper than providing 2 distinct areas.

 

[Toni]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

????

I don't think you intend to make an argument for excluding trans women but that kind of is an argument for excluding trans women.

I am pointing out that stalls have the same issue.

How? Any time your own clothing is disordered or removed, and you are vulnerable, you are in a private space with a lock on it.

Any time someone else's genitals are legitimately exposed, they are too.

The financial argument doesn't wash. With cubicles, every toilet, shower or change room becomes a unisex. Cheaper than providing 2 distinct areas.

Agree although I will advocate for separate mens/womens in some settings that do not involve undressing. For instance, a nice restaurant. I cannot imagine going on a first date with someone (I'm hetero/cis) and then using the same facilities at the same time. Or needing to ask for a tampon (no longer an issue for me but I remember) for an unexpected need and having that revealed. Maybe it's generational but that's something that I've always considered private except where intimate partners are concerned. Women do sometimes want to refresh their hair and make up. On a double date, or on a date that is not going well, sometimes having a good excuse to be away for a few minutes can be vey helpful. If necessary, you can make a quick phone call in private if you need someone to intervene because your date is not the nice person you thought they were, for example. Best done in a women's bathroom, not a unisex facility.

But maybe I'm being old fashioned. We don't go out all that much and at least locally, most restroom facilities are single user/all genders not a multi stall situation. But imagine a teenager who is on a first date at say: McDonalds and suddenly needs a tampon. Or a rescue Or a quick confer with a friend. It's best done in a women's only facility.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've read very little of this thread. I totally support the rights of trans folks, but I'm since it appears that many women have mentioned their fear or being uncomfortable around a person with a visible penis. I simply want to recommend a book I read many years ago. I escaped a potential rape by being able to shame the rapist and hide my fear. That usually works. Anyway, the book I'm suggesting that all women read is about fear and how to determine if someone is likely to attack you.

The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence​

by Gavin de Becker (Author)

One of the things I recall from the book is that a woman should always follow their gut instincts and never worry about insulting the man that appears potentially dangerous. One example I recall is if you are going to step into an elevator and there is a man or men in it that make you feel uncomfortable, simply don't get it and don't worry about what those men think.

I made a mistake when I didn't ask a nice, kind man who I had been chatting with in the bar to walk me to my car. I had a bad feeling and felt unsafe about walking alone in the dark to the car, but I didn't listen to myself. When I got to the car, a stranger pushed me into my car, attempted to drive off with me and threatened to rape me. I had a back up plan, unlocked the door and would have run out in traffic if needed, but the dumbass couldn't use my clutch so instead I hid my fear and shamed him. He left eventually. After that, I always listened to myself if I felt I was in a potentially unsafe situation. The book helped me understand.

And, as far as trans women who haven't transitioned physically, we don't always know they are trans so I can understand not wanting to be naked around them. In fact, I am a very private person when it comes to my body so I don't like being naked around anyone but my spouse. I prefer the single stall restrooms because I feel less inhibited in them. I totally understand the female positions in the tiny bits of this thread that I've read.

And, since those who are over 13, who identify as trans is about 1%, I doubt many of us will even meet a trans person. AfaIk, I've only met one. At least I think she was trans. She was at an atheist meetup and had recently become an RN, but no-one would hire her. After the meetup, I started thinking that her appearance had some male qualities to it, and thought it was likely that she couldn't get a job due to discrimination as nurses almost never have problems getting a job. If it hadn't been so dark in the room, I might have figured that out sooner. I hope things worked out for her as this happened well over 10 years ago.

That's all I have to say, but I do wish you all could post without insulting each other, even when you disagree or misunderstand. Why the fuck can't we agree to disagree? You're not going to make progress or change people's viewpoints by insulting them.

 

[TSwizzle]

Why should women have to put up with this in their locker rooms etc.

A transgender woman who masturbated in front of shocked staff at a hospital has been locked up.
Former soldier Paula Stanton, aged 62, of Severn Avenue, Barry committed the sex act at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The Falklands War veteran had been taken there by ambulance for a mental health assessment over concerns over a threat to self-harm.
Lewis Ball, prosecuting, said: “The defendant put her hands down her leggings to the groin area. Staff could see that she had her penis in her hand and that her hand was moving up and down. This was happening on and off."

News

"she had her penis in her hand"

 

[Jarhyn]

How do I protect myself from sexual assault in the women’s locker room?

However it is, it can't involve "policing women for not looking enough like 'Women'", because... Well, that's just as bad as how Men act, 'policing' each other for not being "Men".

Right now? Be extremely critical of the people who construct and utilize "women's locker rooms" which force the users to be openly nude in front of one another. If you are worried about being in a compromised position because of some manner of the structure, that won't be helped by... Making other people feel less safe in that same structure.

Either demand what I have described of "controlled space" (vetting, in other words), or that the space not require that level of compromise.

It. Is. Not. Acceptable. To. Police. Femininity. With. Essentialism.

It's just not.

If a world policed to the point where every person is forced to conform to some gendered standard of behavior based on "birthday assumptions" and this is what it takes for some people to feel safe, I would just as soon accept that these people have no right to said feeling of safety.

It is like the fruits of "dark magic": The effect is one nominally appreciated and perhaps even one we feel people are entitled to, but rendered through an unacceptable course of action, and so one which people must go without, unless some more acceptable pathway opens.

People do get traumatized, sometimes early on in life. Expecting them to NOT have a spontaneous, even surprising to them reaction when they are confronted with something unexpected where they believe they are completely safe is just unfair and unrealistic. And not safe for anybody.

I don't expect people not to have trauma responses. I DO expect them to apologize for that reaction, and for any tacit accusation that they are not completely safe on account that some person in the room merely has a beard.

It is unfair and unrealistic to believe that every person with a beard is a threat. It's not safe for anyone if you can be attacked without recourse for walking into a room because you have a beard that your body grows that you just refuse to shave off.

When it happens, I expect prompt apology and if it continues or is pressed beyond that towards harassment, I would see the person doing it ejected.

 

[laughing dog]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

????

I don't think you intend to make an argument for excluding trans women but that kind of is an argument for excluding trans women.

I am pointing out that stalls have the same issue.

How? Any time your own clothing is disordered or removed, and you are vulnerable, you are in a private space with a lock on it.

If you are in the stall, then there is no problem. If you are out of the stall, then the bold-faced above is the same.

Any time someone else's genitals are legitimately exposed, they are too.

The financial argument doesn't wash. With cubicles, every toilet, shower or change room becomes a unisex. Cheaper than providing 2 distinct areas.

Absolutely true on both points.

 

[laughing dog]

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Are you actually suggesting that women should get into a deep discussion with the male in a female single-sex intimate space before they can take action?

No.

I mean, hey, maybe women should also pause in the dark carpark and engage in a soul-searching conversation with the random male before we can decide whether they might be a risk. Of course, if they actually do mug or abduct or rape or kill us, then we'll have our answer! Women should totally wait until after the harm has occurred, otherwise it's bigoted.

Your bigotry needs no waiting.

It’s not bigotry.

The amount of uncalled invective in the idiotic straw man is bigotry.

 

[TomC]

The amount of uncalled invective in the idiotic straw man is bigotry.

The casual dismissal of the normal reactions and feelings of normal women is very male. I mean that in the worst possible way.

It's extremely self centered, and reeks of the patriarchal attitude towards women. "Shut up, sit down and stop being so foolish. I'll tell you what is reasonable!"

Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The amount of uncalled invective in the idiotic straw man is bigotry.

The casual dismissal of the normal reactions and feelings of normal women is very male. I mean that in the worst possible way.

It's extremely self centered, and reeks of the patriarchal attitude towards women. "Shut up, sit down and stop being so foolish. I'll tell you what is reasonable!"

Tom

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

 

[Emily Lake]

What I...

...have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women [do not] need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis [genitals] is...

..Anything other than someone exposing their genitals inappropriately so as to know that they are a pervert and sex offender.

Let me get this straight, just so we're crystal fucking clear.

You believe that a full grown adult male of the human species, with a sex offender record for serious offenses, should be allowed by law to go into the female showers and changing rooms at the local community pool and watch little girls change. And the girls and their parents should have no say about that at all... as long as he doesn't actually get his dick out.

Do you not see any potential problems with that?

If things are at that point something is already wrong.

(Unless it's a shower, in which case the people who own the shower facility should have already told the person where to go, and the people who use the open nominally nudity-tolerant shower facilities should damn well be willing to tolerate nudity according to the facility's policies; for The Saloon, the policy is "people will look very intently at your junk, and may pay you money for the novelty of it".)

I'm beside myself with the fact that you keep using a pervert club where people literally pay to watch people get naked, and everyone is an adult and consents to the terms in advance... as a justification for why adult males with fully intact genitals should be allowed by law to look at naked girls if those males say they're trans.

 

[Emily Lake]

When I was a young college student, I volunteered at a suicide/other issues hotline. We were all volunteers, underwent some training and there were psychologists who served as resources and were fairly hands on.
It was a call in only center: we did not meet callers. Our actual location was anonymous and most of us used pseudonyms. Everything was confidential: we did not discuss what happened on our shifts with anyone other than other staff or our advisors.

We got the usual compliment of calls for the day, and actually not many suicide or suicide considering but more just lonely people who needed to talk. We referred people to various resources for pregnancy testing, and care including abortion care, people who needed referrals or encouragement for drug/alcohol issues, etc. marital issues. My boyfriend/girlfriend broke up with me or hits me. I’m flunking and afraid to tell my parents. That sort of thing. Of course we got a decent share of masturbators.

We covered shifts with a male and a female staffer at all times, unless someone could not make a shift and someone of the same sex/gender could not cover. That was rare. We were not allowed to hang up on a caller, no matter how abusive they were. Of course the masterbators were male, and wanted to talk to female staffers. If a guy answered, they’d hang up. Protocol indicated if we got a hang up, our shift partner answered the next call. So if the guy got a hang up, the woman answered the next call. So that’s how our regulars got to connect with a woman.

There were some regulars and they mostly knew when their preferred female staffer member usually worked. One regular was a particularly lonely high school student. We all knew him. Eventually he’d talk to some of the guys about other stuff.

I imagine most of the women here have received these calls at some time. I think it’s less common for men to receive them. At home you just hang up. We could not hang up. Some of the calls were upsetting beyond the fact that some guy had in essence a captive audience to his performance and that was you. A few callers included some pretty violent stuff. Not fun.

There were discussions at regular meeting about how to handle the situation. The men saw no problem. Some of the women struggled because some of the callers were abusive. We suggested the men might feel differently if they had to take the call and could not hang up. Nah, they’d be cool, we were assured.

And then, a few men started getting calls from female masturbators. I never knew for sure if one or two of the women staffers were responsible for such calls or if they convinced a friend to call but it was possible. I did not ask. And no it was not me.

Anyway, the men freaked the shit out. They were shocked and did not know how to respond. It was kind of amusing to see the guy who assured us it was no big deal look so freaked out.

If I remember correctly, at the next staff meeting, it was resolved that if the caller became overly violent or abusive, it was ok to hang up if you could not redirect the conversation.

Calls from women masturbating stopped.

This discussion somehow made me think about that.

There's no appropriate reaction for this. This is awful, and I'm so sorry you had to b e subjected to that. I have an extremely strong aversion to being forced to play a part in someone else's sexual fantasies without consent. It's not at all okay, and being told that you're not allowed to excuse yourself from that is unconscionable.

At the same time.. yeah, this discussion absolutely lines up with that experience.

 

[Emily Lake]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

I agree... but you seem to hold a bit of a different view when it comes to adult males walking in on young girls at the community pool and other sorts of facilities, as long as they keep their dick in their pants. How do you square that? By all means, if I've misunderstood your posts that suggest that transwomen should not be prohibited from using female single-sex changing and showering facilities as long as they don't expose themselves, please correct my error and be clearer about it.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality:

As long as it's not the material reality of sex?

it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

I would say it should reflect the material reality of having a body type that produces testosterone, regardless of whether that body is actively producing testosterone at that moment.

Doing a background check on every male person who wants to go into the female facility seems a bit authoritarian and invasive, whereas simply requiring males to use the same facilities as other males is fairly easy and practical to enforce. It even has the reasonable benefit that a transwoman who actually passes and doesn't expose any male genitals will most likely be able to use the female facility without challenge. But on the other hand... it lets women exclude those fully intact males who come nowhere near passing for our own safety and dignity.

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

The expected etiquette has historically been that males are excluded from female intimate spaces, and vice-versa. That is what created security.

Why do you think that etiquette should be entirely rewritten in a way that disadvantages and harms female-women?

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

Have you given any thought to voyeurism? Have you considered that a whole, whole, whole lot of people are tolerant of nudity from people of their own sex in spaces where nudity is common and reasonable, but intolerant of nudity from people of the opposite sex?

 

[Emily Lake]

The thing is, other than some gross pushback from Loren on expecting facilities meet standards (oh, the horror), I think we're broadly in agreement on near-term goals and how to accomplish them, and what those expectations can reasonably be said to be.

None of them involve "don't have a penis", and none of them justify "attack Jarhyn's niece without instantly apologizing for it profusely at the mere sight of an ID".

You know that literally nobody in this thread would tolerate your niece being attacked, irrespective of whether your niece is male or female. You do know that, right?

The fact is that if someone's preferred solution is instead to police people coming into the room on the basis of their "perceived femininity", they are asking for enforced sex essentialism.

Personally, I would rather see THAT sort asked to go piss on a tree.

You do know that humans are really, really, really good at determining the actual real sex of other non-juvenile humans, don't you? It's not like it's some mystery. It's not like we're all standing around saying "oh, that person has long hair, I bet they can gestate babies even though they're shaped like an inverted triangle, with a waist below their belly button, shoulders like a linebacker, a square jaw, heavy brow, and lots of lush body hair!" If a female-women puts on tennis shoes and jeans, she's not suddenly mistaken for one of the guys.

We can almost always tell other people's sex. You know we can tell. They know we can tell. You know that we know. We know that you know. We know that you know we know.

I'm not going to play this game of commenting on how elaborate and ground-breaking the emperor's outfit is and pretending his bare ass isn't hanging out.

 

[Emily Lake]

How? Any time your own clothing is disordered or removed, and you are vulnerable, you are in a private space with a lock on it.

Any time someone else's genitals are legitimately exposed, they are too.

The financial argument doesn't wash. With cubicles, every toilet, shower or change room becomes a unisex. Cheaper than providing 2 distinct areas.

For consideration...

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.the-independent.com

Mixed-gender changing rooms becoming a 'magnet' for sexual predators, according to new report | LBC

80 sexual assaults, 16 rapes and 65 incidents of voyeurism took place in leisure centres in 2023 – many of them in mixed-gender changing areas.

www.lbc.co.uk

Voyeurism concerns at Stevenage pool's mixed changing rooms

A police officer suggests plans to retain mixed facilities at a leisure centre be reconsidered.

www.bbc.com

 

[Emily Lake]

Agree although I will advocate for separate mens/womens in some settings that do not involve undressing. For instance, a nice restaurant. I cannot imagine going on a first date with someone (I'm hetero/cis) and then using the same facilities at the same time. Or needing to ask for a tampon (no longer an issue for me but I remember) for an unexpected need and having that revealed. Maybe it's generational but that's something that I've always considered private except where intimate partners are concerned. Women do sometimes want to refresh their hair and make up. On a double date, or on a date that is not going well, sometimes having a good excuse to be away for a few minutes can be vey helpful. If necessary, you can make a quick phone call in private if you need someone to intervene because your date is not the nice person you thought they were, for example. Best done in a women's bathroom, not a unisex facility.

But maybe I'm being old fashioned. We don't go out all that much and at least locally, most restroom facilities are single user/all genders not a multi stall situation. But imagine a teenager who is on a first date at say: McDonalds and suddenly needs a tampon. Or a rescue Or a quick confer with a friend. It's best done in a women's only facility.

You're not being old fashioned. This hasn't changed.

 

[TomC]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom