Completely agree.

But once again it seems to be about men, or to be more exact, men who self identify as women, rather than those born as women. Seems to be a pattern here.

There has to be a unisex option as well as women cannot be forced to accept sharing bathrooms/toilets with men who simply self-identify as women, which is clearly open to considerable abuse.

What about young vulnerable girls out on their own needing to use the loo. Sex attacks on young women are on the increase and this is no time to be getting all PC and putting the rights of one group before the rights and safety of another group.

Are you suggesting it's transwomen attacking girls?

No I am clearly suggesting that predatory men posing as transwomen, hardly difficult to do if all they have to do is self-identify, are and will be presented with an easier method of doing so if they can legitimately hang around the female bathrooms.

I suppose the worry would not be that it's genuine transwomen who are attacking people, but rather, that people who are inclined to attack people might opportunistically abuse the situation by claiming to be trans in order to access female facilities.

IMO though, the solution is individual self contained unisex toilets (with toilet and hand basin) :shrug:.

As for changing facilities... I dunno if it's just around here... but the vast majority of clothing shops and supermarkets are NOT segregated / with just curtains, there is just one area with a number of individual locking changing rooms? I don't see why that model would be a problem in sports / swimming facilities, also. Frankly it would be better for a lot of people; plenty don't like getting changed in front of anyone, regardless of gender, and would prefer total privacy.

[edit] It would also be much better for families and especially dads with those "awkward age" kids like my eldest. Up until maybe 4 or 5 she had no problem coming into men's changing... and I'm sure once she's 10 or 11 she will happily go into the womens on her own. Currently, though, aged 8, it's an impossible situation if I take her swimming on my own. She refuses to go into men's changing (and it isn't really appropriate for her to), but also is nervous about going into the women's on her own and obviously I can't join her. Genuinely don't see why it can't be a communal locker area with individual, secure changing booths.

Brillo had clarified before you posted.

Why would your swimming issue specifically affect dads?... I had exactly the same issue taking my son swimming :/

I believe everyone has a right to privacy, young, old whatever gender or non gender. If the swim, gym, toilet can't accommodate those needs then find another.

I just use the disabled toilet; it's always cleaner and more room.

OK yes, it probably affects both in many ways. Although frankly... people tend to have far less issue with a male child being in a female changing area than they do with a female child being in a male changing area.

I've been to few pools that had family cubicles which are very handy

I have the same problem with my son aged 7....although he's adamant he wants to go on the mens on his own, luckily our local pool has family changing rooms

I thought your angle was the wishes of the child?
thanks for mansplaining this for me though :)

Oh Kizzy... you're really barking up the wrong tree if you're going to start with the tired, tedious, militant feminist twitter-war "mansplaining" rhetoric. Let's just maybe not go there.

It was a joke but it didn't take long for that insult to surface......*judges you

The one I went to when I was a kid had three full areas (men's, women's and family) and it seemed like a really simple solution - but I've yet to see another pool with that set up since! A couple with one or two separate family change rooms, but usually with a queue to use them.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a joke :suspect: but anyway, militant feminism is just an accurate and fair description of the word "mansplaining", rather than an insult :shrug:.

Yup it would be good if places would do this.


Male, female and unisex/family. Would be perfect really and surely would solve all the arguments over this issue. Any man who doesn't want to use the mens could go into the unisex rather than the womens. Transactivists do not want this though, as apparently its 'othering' to trans people. But...they ARE 'other' as they are males who 'feel like' women rather than actual women, and vice versa. So 'othering' is completely right in this case.

But yes, places really should start catering more for everyone. That will take a lot of time and money mind. Which is why I think so many are happy to just chuck men in with women. Who cares what the women think about it, its cheaper and easier and we also get to look 'right on!' D:

(I speak mainly of transwomen rather than transmen, because there are so many cases of 'transwomen' wailing about wanting to be in the womens. Never hear of transmen wanting into the mens. Seems for some odd reason, the womens is where everyone wants to be. I wonder why that is :think:)

And about 'mansplaining'

https://www.indy100.com/article/mans...s-quoi-8066751

Saw this a few days back and this mini argument reminded me of it :D

But it's hypocritical bull**** - like this article itself is a paradox! She is trying to womansplain "mansplaining" :joker:.

You're doing it again!... just stop LOL

What do you think mansplaining is?

My understanding of the phrase is men talking down to women about something that women already know. Like in the article, the actual mansplaining part..when she answered what je ne sais quoi meant...the guy didn't even know himself but continued to explain even though she had already bloody answered.

Mansplaining is not just a man explaining...many think it is :laugh: It does get overused though sometimes. When I first explained what it meant to my husband, he said a lot of men will 'mansplain' to him too. Just seems to be much more common for men to do it to women. Some women may also may do it to men, I accept that. But noone in that article is 'womansplaining' :suspect:

'the guy didn't even know himself but continued to explain even though she had already bloody answered.'

Like TS did in this thread?... :idc:

Is this accurate? I would have thought it's more the case that transwomen are more often denied the use of women's facilities (because of the perceived danger of a man being in a womans space) and therefore speak up as a reaction to that happening, whereas transmen often don't face the same denials. I don't know of any transmen who would rather use womens facilities, they use the mens and it just kind of goes unreported and therefore we don't hear about it.

There is one story in the press about a transman wanting into male facilities, and they were told no. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases of transwomen wanting into womens facilities. Transwomen who pass are not an issue at all, as obviously they pass. Its always the very obvious male people who are screaming on about wanting into the ladies...

I know this is not representative at all as its reddit, but I read the 'asktransgender' bit a lot to try and understand more, and its very common for transmen to be nervous about using male areas and they still use the womens (but feel they should be demanding access to the mens so as to support transwomen in their fight :rolleyes: ). As its unsafe for them in the mens basically, which it is obvious. A person with a vagina going into an entirely male area and stripping off..well its asking for trouble really isn't it. It might not happen the first time, or the tenth, but eventually they will be attacked.

There was a very sad case not long ago of a transman who was raped by a taxi driver. Apparently they were sobbing 'but I am a man' all the way through and could not understand why he continued after finding out the sex she is 'in her head'. Because gender identity means **** all to most people. You were raped as you have a female body. 'Gender identity' is nothing at all. So sad that some people buy into it so much that they think everyone else does too.

Even if your understanding of the phrase is correct, the phrase itself is needlessly and deliberately aggressive and inflammatory. Also there's the fact that it is often not used in this context at all and is, in fact, used as a catch-all jibe against any male who dares openly disagree with a female's interpretation of anything. It IS used to shoot down "a man explaining" - any man, explaining anything.

The example used sounds like an arrogant arsehole, a know-it-all perhaps, but I 100% guarantee he speaks in the same way to other males when he thinks he knows best. Also the idea that it's an exclusively male phenomenon is nonsense... either that, or whoever wrote it has never been on TiBB :idc:.

There's also the sort of problematic fact that they are both right and wrong - she gave him the literal translation of the phrase but that doesn't explain what the phrase actually translates to at all - his "mansplaination" of what it means is a less literal translation but actually a more accurate description of what the phrase means.

What was I "mansplaining"? You claimed that you said something as a joke, I told you that I didn't believe you. I wasn't explaining anything, I was calling you a liar :hee:. And given that you've since then quite clearly confirmed that you weren't joking at all, that seems to have been a justified assessment.

I didn't know for certain what it was myself until Vicky posted that... but if the shoe fits? :shrug: