Unisex changing rooms put women in danger

a reply to: TrueBrit

mastery over your nature is looking at a naked woman and not making her disturbed. amen.

The simplest most logical suggestion has been made- to add a 3rd restroom and leave the men’s for men only and the women for women only. The 3rd can be a single locking restroom where it also has a changing table to accommodate parents with opposite gender children.

Most Target’s already have this and call it “Family Room” which ironically is a term queers refer to each other as- family. It’s like this thing could have solved itself, but I suspect it was ignored because accommodating trans had nothing to do with it.

It’s about control and power; it’s about politics and polarization; it is not about your safety, comfort, or inclusive experience.

a reply to: Damla

Just so that you understand this for the future, it is not possible to actively look at a woman you do not know, while she changes, and have her be anything else than uncomfortable, unless that individual happens to be in some manner an exhibitionist. Now, it takes all sorts to make a world, and there is no judgement either implied or directed in that statement, but it is a statement of fact.

I have female friends, people I have known for AGES. They are comfortable wearing their PJs in my presence, sometimes even changing clothes with me in the room, not because they don't care if I see something more than is strictly decent in that setting, but because they know, instinctively that I will ensure that I do not see anything which ought by their standards, or mine, to be private.

There is a massive difference between the almost familial connection two people whose connection is platonic may have, which allows for a certain state of undress without discomfort, and two perfect strangers being in a state of undress in one anothers company. Its terrible to say, but women are not in the enviable position of being able to trust that the men around them are not looking to perv at them, or, God forbid, cop a feel in passing, and they SHOULDN'T trust that the men around them are going to behave like gentlemen, not because males shouldn't behave like gentlemen, but because they simply don't on enough of a percentile basis, to be quite a problem in such a setting.

Don't get it twisted. Things are as they actually are, not as you perceive them to be. In this case, there is a dire lack of proper conduct expressed toward women, by men, still, despite all the cultural advances we like to think we have made, and until that is corrected, these situations will continue to be uncomfortable for those affected by them.

a reply to: Damla
That's the thing, in every UK sports/swimming centre I've ever worked at the male changing rooms don't even have cubicles, just an open plan room with benches, whereas the female changing rooms have cubicles with doors.
Like I said, just an observation but I've never understood why females hide from each other, maybe it's just a UK curiousity.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Damla
That's the thing, in every UK sports/swimming centre I've ever worked at the male changing rooms don't even have cubicles, just an open plan room with benches, whereas the female changing rooms have cubicles with doors.
Like I said, just an observation but I've never understood why females hide from each other, maybe it's just a UK curiousity.

Maybe the females don't 'want to' hide............maybe it's because females are born into the way it already is.
Females do go into the cubicles with others....with a friend.
I went into a cubicle once and a 'friend' followed me in.....next thing I know they are snogging me.....I didn't want that.........so ran away!!

You are not even safe in a same sex bathroom/rest room by the way!!

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Good point maybe, but what would explain a situation where men change openly in front of each other while women have cubicles with doors in their changing rooms?
I struggle to imagine it was a male patriarch decision there because it does not affect males.
I'm going with the idea that women don't even want their own gender to see them changing for some reason, possible body image issues?

i dont know. i lost my interest. thanks. it was nice conversation.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It was probably men who didn't want 'their property' to be on display.
You know it was 1991 when women stopped being 'property of men'?

But who knows for sure why women have separate cubicles.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Probably? No more 'probably' than my guess about body image, just your opinion based on a guess as mine is.
...and what country are you on about women being the property of men until 1991? Certainly not the UK, although it was legal to rape your wife in Britain up until the early 90's.
EDIT
I see your 3rd line edit

a reply to: kaylaluv

Of course you are correct. But don't forget the main point of the OP is that trans people are to blame.

The OP did no such thing. At no time did the OP or the source even suggest that trans people committed these crimes.

The OP and the source rightfully attributed the crimes to the FACT that gender neutral bathrooms create greater opportunity for predators. The gender "identity" of the perps were not a factor.

However it is very telling that you would make such a leap. I didn't. The law of averages assures us that some percentage of predators are trans, but no one thinks ONLY trans people are predators. Or that ONLY trans predators will exploit the opportunities that gender neutral bathrooms provide.

YOU went there. And in the process made it very clear that you will happily put women and children in danger so men can play dress up...

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Itisnowagain

...and what country are you on about women being the property of men until 1991? Certainly not the UK, although it was legal to rape your wife in Britain up until the early 90's.
EDIT
I see your 3rd line edit

It was not legal to rape your wife................there was no such thing as rape if she was your wife..she was your property..that is the point I am making....a wife was property as far as I can tell until a law came about to prevent a man raping a wife.
A woman used to have to say......'I promise to obey' in her marriage vows...........that has changed also.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Slightly off-topic but related, when I was a lifeguard many years ago one of our tasks was hosing down the changing rooms after closing time.
What I never understood was why the female changing rooms had cubicles with privacy doors, but the male changing rooms were open plan.
It's the same to this day, males change in front of each other but women hide from each other. I've always thought it must be because females have body image issues and judge each other more than males judge each other.
I can't think of any other reason. Just throwing it out there as an observation.

I always use to undress in front of women in change rooms without issue, until I recently joined a gym and while I started to undress an older woman stopped dead in front of me watching me undress; she was eyeing me up and down the whole time. Needless to say, I was very uncomfortable, so I started using the more private change room (closet).

Do you men have similar stories of being ogled while undressing in a change room?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Yes it was legal to rape your wife because marital rape was not recognised. Consent was assumed in law due to the marriage.
You can google the specific law as much as you like but you will find no mention of women being the 'property' of men until 1991, that is your invention, or inaccurate interpretation alone.

Whatever, it has no relation to the unknown reason why in the UK women change in cubicles with doors and men change in open plan rooms with benches.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Do you men have similar stories of being ogled while undressing in a change room?

Lol no, it would be like asking a man for a fight, violence would be expected.
I imagine some physically weaker males have suffered it over the years in places when a dominant homosexual male has done so. Males rape males as well so it would be expected I imagine.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Yes it was legal to rape your wife because marital rape was not recognised. Consent was assumed in law due to the marriage.
You can google the specific law as much as you like but you will find no mention of women being the 'property' of men until 1991, that is your invention, or inaccurate interpretation alone.

She was the husbands property..he could do with her what he wanted...........she had to do what he said or put up with him doing what he wanted.
Yes..it maybe an interpretation but 'consent was assumed in law due to marriage'..............nowhere does it ever say 'it was legal to rape your wife'..............rape was not recognised in marriage prior to 1991.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Exactly, the consent was assumed by the marriage. Rape was not illegal, it was not a crime due to the assumption of consent by marriage.
You have nothing to support your 'property of men' thing, that is pure invention on your part.
...or quote some legislation to back it up, but right now you have nothing, sorry but it's true.

EDIT
If an act is not prescribed in law as illegal then it is legal. Why are you struggling to accept that?
Marital rape was not prescribed as a crime until '91 so it was de facto legal. Semantics is all we're arguing here, but again, you have nothing to support your claim that women were a mans property in law up until '91.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The word RAPE did not exist in marriage prior to 1991.............so it was not legal or illegal to RAPE your wife....because there was no such thing as RAPE in a marriage prior to 1991.

Sorry but I cannot help but see that as ownership.
I wonder if married women were allowed to tie their husbands up and stick things up his anus before 1991 without his consent?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
If an act is not prescribed as illegal then it is legal by default. Again you are arguing semantics.
As far as ownership goes that is merely your perception and interpretation of the situation. You are factually wrong though, women were not legally the property of men up until 1991, they were however subject to forced sex without the husband suffering any legal penalty.

Now, quote some legislation to support your claim that women were considered property of their husbands until 1991, or just admit that is your personal perception. They were not. You are expressing pure opinion which is factually incorrect.
Men could force sex on their wives (commonly known as rape) without any legal penalty. Rape therefore was de facto legal.

...now quote some legislation to support your 'property' claims or just admit that is your own perception, not born of any legal grounds.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Marriage was traditionally understood as an institution where a husband had control over his wife's life; control over her sexuality was only a part of the greater control that he had in all other areas concerning her.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Now, quote some legislation to support your claim that women were considered property of their husbands until 1991, or just admit that is your personal perception.

Sorry but I cannot help but see that as ownership......that is an admission that it is a perception here.
However...

A husband's control over his wife's body could also be seen in the way adultery between a wife and another man was constructed; for example in 1707, English Lord Chief Justice John Holt described the act of a man having sexual relations with another man's wife as "the highest invasion of property".

en.wikipedia.org...