52

A friend and I were talking about TIMs in women's bathrooms, and she mentioned that it probably wouldn't bother her if Blaire White or Rose of Dawn were in the bathroom with her. They're gay men, and wouldn't feel threatened. I explained to her why, if there was a young girl in the bathroom, I would insist out loud that they wait or go somewhere else.

And I want to make this VERY CLEAR- I don't think either would do anything to harm a child. Both Rose of Dawn and Blaire White seem very committed to protecting children and calling out predatory behavior on their platforms.

However, here's where I'm at. I don't want my daughters to be accustomed to males being in spaces where they are in some state of undress. Especially living in a major city where, just by the law of averages, it will happen more often if it's allowed.

Predators of children rely on soft boundaries, and every little bit helps. If my girls are used to men being in the same bathroom as they are, and have been raised not to view it as a threat, predators ARE aware of what factors put the odds in their favor.

Example- gender neutral single bathrooms are a magnet for hidden cameras. Predators can see every loose brick in a safe guard. They know when circumstances become even easier than they were before. There's "crime happens no matter what" and there's setting criminals up for success.

So when a man goes into a female bathroom, for any reason, I need my girls to have a knee jerk reaction that something is out of order. It's not just about that particular HSTS. It's about socializing girls to be more oblivious to their surroundings, and less able to recognize danger. Girls need a realistic understanding that there are plenty of male predators who would attack them if they had access. And every day that you don't get attacked are irrelevant on the day that you do.

No one would EVER suggest that, if you've seen bears in your back yard a million times and never been mauled, you can walk in deep bear country without bear spray.

A friend and I were talking about TIMs in women's bathrooms, and she mentioned that it probably wouldn't bother her if Blaire White or Rose of Dawn were in the bathroom with her. They're gay men, and wouldn't feel threatened. I explained to her why, if there was a young girl in the bathroom, I would insist out loud that they wait or go somewhere else. And I want to make this VERY CLEAR- I don't think either would do anything to harm a child. Both Rose of Dawn and Blaire White seem very committed to protecting children and calling out predatory behavior on their platforms. However, here's where I'm at. I don't want my daughters to be accustomed to males being in spaces where they are in some state of undress. Especially living in a major city where, just by the law of averages, it will happen more often if it's allowed. Predators of children rely on soft boundaries, and every little bit helps. If my girls are used to men being in the same bathroom as they are, and have been raised not to view it as a threat, predators ARE aware of what factors put the odds in their favor. Example- gender neutral single bathrooms are a magnet for hidden cameras. Predators can see every loose brick in a safe guard. They know when circumstances become even easier than they were before. There's "crime happens no matter what" and there's setting criminals up for success. So when a man goes into a female bathroom, for any reason, I need my girls to have a knee jerk reaction that something is out of order. It's not just about that particular HSTS. It's about socializing girls to be more oblivious to their surroundings, and less able to recognize danger. Girls need a realistic understanding that there are plenty of male predators who would attack them if they had access. And every day that you don't get attacked are irrelevant on the day that you do. No one would EVER suggest that, if you've seen bears in your back yard a million times and never been mauled, you can walk in deep bear country without bear spray.

15 comments

[–] Freyja 32 points (+32|-0)

It's about socializing girls to be more oblivious to their surroundings, and less able to recognize danger. Girls need a realistic understanding that there are plenty of male predators who would attack them if they had access.

I would say it's not only that, but also -- it's not for your friend to dictate other women and girls' boundaries. Sure, maybe SHE is fine with the hypothetical situation, but she is not in the position to give away other women and girls' consent.

[–] littleowl12 [OP] 12 points (+12|-0)

To be fair to her, she was just saying it wouldn't personally bother her. She agreed with my take.

[–] Freyja 7 points (+7|-0)

Yup, fair enough, I've just seen how that kind of conversation easily leads into that territory a few too many times

[–] wildpansy 2 points (+2|-0)

Yes, people are trying to treat the issue as yet another social norm, like whether men should hold doors open for women or not. Women's instinct to fear males in their spaces goes so much deeper than that, it's not just up to anyone to say everyone needs to be comfortable in this situation. Stop prioritizing men's fetishes over women's right to feel safe from assault.

[–] TwoOnTheClock 21 points (+21|-0) Edited

This is something TIMs fundamentally do not understand about being female - that males will always pose a sexual threat and, while we do our best to avoid those threats, the reality is most women will experience some form of sexual assault or harassment.

One bad apple spoils the bunch, and the barrel of men is so spoiled it's alcoholic. All I hear when TIMs protest they're not the problem is "Not All Men".

Here's something I don't understand about the whole bathroom thing: If any sex should be able to use any bathroom, why are TIMs specifically fighting to be in the women's bathroom and not fighting for the men's bathroom to be more inclusive? If they recognize men in a secluded space pose a threat, why are they holding our washroom doors open for them? Why are TIMs not fighting against opportunistically violent folks in the men's room? Why are TIMs not fighting back against predatory men, and pushing for societal change? Why do TIMs refuse to be allies for women and instead choose to fight us in our most vulnerable spaces?

*Edited because I confused TIM with TIF. I'm still not good with left/right, or East/West, so you get what you get :)

[–] girl_undone 8 points (+8|-0)

This is something TIMs fundamentally do not understand about being female - that males will always pose a sexual threat and, while we do our best to avoid those threats, the reality is most women will experience some form of sexual assault or harassment.

It's not that they do not understand. They do not care.

Our boundaries are an obstacle they wish to overcome by force, they don't give a shit about our well being. They have made that perfectly clear.

Yes! TiM are MEN and the men's room should accommodate them. I don't understand them being called "Transwomen" because they are not women. They are men who LARP as "women." Seems like the word "womanizer" doesn't really suit men who hit on a lot of women. Those who "woman-ize" seem like the AGP actually. But totally these men belong in the men's room, and that includes the gay men and the ones who seem harmless on YT like Rose and Blaire.

[–] Notgonnastop 3 points (+3|-0)

Because it is not about avoiding male violence for them, it is about being 'validated' as a woman.

[–] jelliknight 13 points (+13|-0)

As a general rule, every man fighting to get into a bathroom with an underage girl is a danger. I don't care what they say on twitter or what they claim their sexual orientation it. If they want to be were 13 year olds girls are vulnerable, the assumption should rightly be that they're dangerous perverts.

[–] feralfeminist 11 points (+11|-0)

Same goes for rapists of adult women. We're all in greater danger if this is allowed to stand.

The way I see it there are three kinds of men: (1) men who will cross boundaries no matter what, (2) men who will only commit wrongdoing if they're pretty sure they won't get caught, and (3) men who would never dream of harming a woman or child. And I'm not sure there are a whole lot of Type Threes.

But let's say there are equal numbers of men of all three types. Having single-sex privacy facilities and specifically banning men from women's privacy facilities (not just bathrooms) means the difference between 1/3 of men (if optimistic) bothering us and our kids, and 2/3rds of men doing it.

[–] girl_undone 6 points (+6|-0)

Absolutely.

Telling women and girls to be tolerant of men in spaces that men aren't supposed to be in, teaching them to get used to their comfort zone being trampled and their boundaries disregarded, is part of rape culture.

We're all being groomed right now. Obviously it's worse for girls.

[–] edieandthea 5 points (+5|-0)

Makes perfect sense to me! Similar situation? - my university permits opposite sex roommates (yes, even shared bedroom), by request (usually women and gay men who are close friends, also some idiot straight couples who usually broke up and had to be rehomed).

So women who are comfortable sharing space with a man can do so, but obviously mixed sex housing is not used for random freshman room assignment because most women are not comfortable sharing such a private setting with a strange man.

[–] SakauMelocoton 0 points (+0|-0)

There was a discussion earlier on s/Gendercritical and one of the users there has an excellent response to transexual identified males trying to enter into our spaces: These spaces do not belong to them, so they don't get to rewrite the rules about who can access them.. It's a very good read!