U of T decreases gender-neutral bathrooms after voyeurism reports

[Violet Bloom]

U of T decreases gender-neutral bathrooms after voyeurism reports

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2015/10/05/u-of-t-alters-bathroom-policy-after-2-voyeurism-reports.html

Torstar News Service, by staff | Mon Oct 05 2015

"The University of Toronto has decreased the number of gender-neutral bathrooms in one of its colleges after two women became victims of voyeurism when (they) were filmed while showering."

(note: The word inserted in brackets was omitted in error in the original article text but clearly implied.  ~V)

[suzifrommd]

What do you bet that the culprit, if they get caught, will end up being cisgender, but people will use this as further evidence that trans women should not be allowed in the ladies'?

[captains]

What do you bet that the culprit, if they get caught, will end up being cisgender, but people will use this as further evidence that trans women should not be allowed in the ladies'?

Now that's a sucker bet if I've ever seen one. The house knows chances are just about 100%.

[Violet Bloom]

What do you bet that the culprit, if they get caught, will end up being cisgender, but people will use this as further evidence that trans women should not be allowed in the ladies'?

  There's a very good chance that even if the culprit is found, the angle you sight will go unreported, or that there won't be any follow-up at all.  It's conceivable that many readers will simply assume the wrong thing - that gender-variant people are victimizing rather than being victimized - solely due to the type of 'venue'.  If it turns out the perpetrator wasn't cis then this conclusion is even more likely to result.

  There is actually no automatic reason to assume that a gender-neutral bathroom would at any one moment not be solely occupied by cis people given that it is open to anyone or that the voyeur would enter with the sole intent of victimizing gender-variant people.  In the end we are the victims anyway because of the reduction in number of gender-neutral bathrooms, no matter the reason, the identities of the people involved, or whatever the public reads into the story.  It is so sad that cis people manage to find every last way to mess things up for us though.

Now that's a sucker bet if I've ever seen one. The house knows chances are just about 100%.

  A few years back there was a well-publicized voyeurism incident in our subway system.  A male staff member had drilled a hole in a wall between a staff-only room and the women's restroom so that he could peep through.  I'm inclined to believe this would align with voyeurism statistics on the whole - straight cisgender men victimizing women.

  (As an aside, I've yet to knowingly meet a transman or any gender-variant person in general with an obvious inclination towards sexually victimizing anyone.  The experience of feeling like a victim of society already seems to pretty effective at limiting this behaviour in gender-variant folks.)

[stephaniec]

I must be missing something here. If someone going to do that what difference does it make if the doors marked M or F. If everyone in there is taking a shower no one there to see someone coming in.

[Deborah]

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment without any intent to offend anyone.  But how exactly do these "bathroom rules" work.  The news items are always kind of vague and just say you can use the bathroom you identify with.  If that is really taken at face value and all you have to do is say you "identify", no other steps taken, then of course its going to be abused.  Iv'e sadly known plenty of guys in my life that take a peek if all they have to do is say "I identify" and maybe slip on a pair of jeans marked W.

It seems to me that if you haven't gone full time and at least begun the steps to indicate that you are real and not playing a con game then its a pretty small matter to not use the other bathroom.

No, its probably not fair to some but there really are lots of guys who would play that con game.  I know.  I grew up with them and could never understand that at all.

So, what's the solution.  I don't know but there are two sides to this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[suzifrommd]

I must be missing something here. If someone going to do that what difference does it make if the doors marked M or F. If everyone in there is taking a shower no one there to see someone coming in.

If you have a space where women shower but men can enter freely, there is the possibility that a man will harass a woman in the shower.

I must say that I wouldn't want to shower in a space where men can come in. When you're in the shower, you're in a vulnerable position, and I would be concerned for my safety. I am not a gender neutral changing area advocate. I actually support what the university did.

[Violet Bloom]

  I don't personally know enough about the specifics of the U of T policies to have a strong opinion one way or another.  That is, except to say that it's a shame access is being reduced for people that fought to get it in the first place, and possibly through no fault of their own or without even being a victim in this case (we don't know if the victims were actually gender-variant because it wasn't reported).  I suspect that the university created these spaces in the first place to allow for maximum inclusion in order for no one 'interest group' to feel left out.  (If you guys knew the crazy politics of inclusion in this city you'd understand why!)  Perhaps that was the fatal mistake because it really did allow access to absolutely everyone, the creep included.  Had these been trans/queer etc. spaces specifically rather than for "anyone" willing to use them then this incident may not have happened at all.