In a recent series of tweets, JK Rowling stated that “88% of sexual crimes committed in changing/locker rooms happen in those that are unisex,” a claim that has drawn scrutiny. Is this assertion accurate, and do unisex facilities indeed pose a greater risk as suggested?

Rowling's claim originates from a 2018 article in the Sunday Times titled "Unisex Changing Rooms Put Women in Danger," which cited a Freedom of Information Request. This request revealed that a significant portion of complaints related to sexual assaults, voyeurism, and harassment in swimming pool changing rooms occurred in those with unisex setups rather than gender-segregated ones.

It's crucial to note the specific context: the data pertains only to swimming pools. This raises questions about why such a narrow focus was taken. The Times likely conducted this inquiry as a means of gathering politically advantageous statistics, taking advantage of unique features inherent to swimming pools.

When examining statistics, one must consider that if 88% of reported assaults occur in unisex facilities, yet those facilities represent 95% of all changing rooms, the actual frequency of assaults may be proportionally lower in those spaces. For the statistic to hold weight, two conditions must be met: 1. There must be an equal number of gendered and unisex changing rooms in the sample. 2. The facilities in both categories must be nearly identical, differing only in their gender designation.

The latter assumption is likely flawed. Unisex facilities are often found in smaller, less affluent pools that lack the resources for dual setups. Furthermore, such locations may experience higher assault rates due to fewer patrons present, which diminishes the likelihood of witnesses.

This illustrates a form of misinformation that exploits cognitive biases, leading people to unconsciously fill in gaps in the argument. The phrasing “88% of assaults happen in a gender-neutral space” prompts the audience to assume equal representation and similarity in conditions, when in fact those premises might not be valid.

By contrast, scientific research tends to be more meticulous. A study titled "Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations" scrutinized the impact of such laws on crime rates in restrooms and changing rooms. By comparing regions in Massachusetts with and without these protections, researchers found lower crime rates in areas that upheld nondiscrimination laws. However, the small numbers meant no statistically significant conclusions could be drawn.

This careful methodology stands in stark contrast to the misleading rhetoric often employed by anti-trans activists like Rowling, who manipulate evidence to support their views, which are often at odds with scientific consensus.

To create a compelling argument for gendered safety, one might propose the following scenario: A woman alone in a public restroom with gender-segregated facilities may face a higher risk of assault compared to if the bathrooms were unisex. While it is true that gendering bathrooms does not deter determined attackers, those who act opportunistically may exploit the isolation created by traditional gendered setups.

While the risk of stranger assaults is relatively low, any reduction in potential attacks would enhance safety for women. Yet, this argument falls short rhetorically. It minimizes the risks trans women face and implies a trade-off between the safety of cis and trans women, inadvertently reinforcing harmful narratives.

The argument misses the broader implications of such policies. It assumes risk is a finite resource that can simply be reduced by removing a small threat, failing to consider the potential adverse effects of gender segregation. Questions about how to maximize safety and dignity for all women are often overlooked in favor of a simplistic narrative.

If we expand the initial scenario, we can consider that a woman is not necessarily alone. Having a companion, especially a male one, can significantly enhance safety. Gender-segregated bathrooms would separate women from their male companions, potentially increasing vulnerability if an attack were to occur.

This situation is not merely hypothetical. Historical instances of assaults in public restrooms highlight the dangers that can arise when a woman is isolated from her support network, further complicating the argument for gendered spaces.

Moreover, concerns extend beyond assaults. Incidents like slips, falls, or medical emergencies can occur in restrooms, and having a companion nearby could be critical in such situations. Gender segregation can delay assistance in emergencies, introducing a new layer of risk.

There are also enforcement issues to consider. Conspiracy theories about transgender individuals can lead to harassment and violence in gender-segregated spaces, creating environments of fear and hostility that would not exist otherwise. Additionally, if policies allow security personnel to challenge individuals based on perceived gender identity, it opens the door for abuse of power and potential assault.

The design of bathrooms themselves can also be scrutinized. Traditional restroom layouts often prioritize privacy over safety, with heavy doors that provide concealment without effective means to deter potential aggressors.

A safer design could involve open washing areas visible to the public, well-constructed stalls with locks, and accessible facilities that enhance security without sacrificing privacy. Such approaches could reduce risks for all users, regardless of gender identity.

Ultimately, the gender-based safety approach may offer marginal benefits in certain scenarios while creating significant risks for others. It fails to recognize the complexities of safety, often prioritizing a flawed narrative over practical solutions.

In prisons, similar arguments are made about the necessity of strict gender segregation for safety. However, the real question should be why any environment, including prisons, allows for frequent assaults at all.

Statistics reveal that prisoners are often at greater risk of assault from staff than from fellow inmates, highlighting the need for systemic reform to ensure safety in these settings.

In conclusion, for gender-based safety arguments to hold water, two conditions must be satisfied: the environment must inherently be unsafe, and individuals, typically men, must possess considerable power over women within that context.

There is no framework for gender-based safety that does not involve significant surveillance and control of women. Anti-trans activists like Rowling oppose any measures that genuinely promote women's safety, as these contradict their agenda of policing gender identity. This stance is not merely a divergence from feminism; it is an active opposition to its principles.