UPDATE in 456ish: Older boy in women's locker room WWYD

[EmseB]

The OP related her own speculations as to his age and his ability to change. People are layering their own speculations on top of that. I think what 8circles is saying that it's generally a good idea to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than ascribe nefarious intent or poor moral character. I would not act as the OP describes this woman as acting but I have access to a pool where I have the privilege of weighing options (van, many family dressing rooms, a largely empty women's room where it's possible to duck to privacy while giving other people theirs). That does not make me a morally superior human being. Maybe the gal just made a mistake. Perhaps like a lot of people, she resorts to becoming defensive when challenged and had simply assumed there were not any keys because she's run into that before. Maybe now that she knows it bothers someone, she will change her behavior.

 

To listen to this thread (not your posts- just the general tenor of the posts), apparently WTM is full of people who are above reproach and never make a single mistake. I'm not buying that...

Yes, the age was a speculation. But going from 8-10 down to 4 is a pretty big leap.

 

But I don't get the same impression that everyone else is saying they never make a mistake or fudge rules. But a lot of people are talking about places where there are no family accommodations, where there are rules about 2yos, where they've scooted their 4yo through the locker room apologetically, or said culturally our nudity standards are ridiculous, etc, etc and then used that as the basis for saying the woman in the OP is justified in doing what she did because she probably didn't mean any harm or is trying to affect change in policies in some gradual way. And it doesn't make sense to me in the discussion that then myself and others are taken to task for "speculation" about what happened.

Edited January 30, 2016 by JodiSue

[LucyStoner]

Some people follow rules regardless of why.

 

Some people break rules for no reason at all.

 

Most of us are in the middle somewhere. There is no moral superiority to following every single rule regardless of how absurd.

 

Addressing the example you use- people saying they would ignore the rule of it were under 5-6. Requiring boys ages 2 or 3 or 4 to not have access to a caregiver's help in the changing room IS absurd. And rarely is that posted before one enters a facility and pays.

 

BTW, I do totally agree with you that there is speculation on almost all sides.

 

I've mostly talked about my specific family situation but I am sure I am not wholly above speculation either. Such is life.

 

Still, really and truly NO good comes of latching on the most negative connotations as to why someone behaved in any given way. I would specifically say this definitely applies to people speculating as to why others are modest. And to people deigning to assume who had special needs and not. And to a lot of things.

Edited January 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

Most of us are in the middle somewhere. There is no moral superiority to following every single rule regardless of how absurd.

 

 

 

I agree.  I do tend to disagree with the idea, though, that the answer is to just do what you feel like regardless of club policies.  I do think if someone, instead of making others uncomfortable with their tween boy in the ladies', works out some other solution or uses the family accommodations available is general morally superior to someone who disregards everyone else for whatever reason.  Just like I think someone who is single and takes up a family bathroom for their own convenience is making a morally inferior choice than leaving it open for others with more need.

 

I think there are choices that are better than others, morally or however else you would want to frame it.  Having regard for other people's nudity and bodily privacy in terms of gender is one of those choices that I think is probably best to let them decide based on what the rules of the facility state they can expect.

 

Addressing the example you use- people staying they would ignore the rule of it were under 5-6. Requiring boys ages 2 or 3 or 4 to not have access to a caregiver's help in the changing room IS absurd.

 

 

I also agree with this.

 

However, I'm not sure, again, why this keeps getting brought up as somehow a defense of bringing a tween boy into a woman's locker room when family accommodations were available.  That was my point in bringing up that example.  It's not relevant to situation in the OP.

 

 

I grew up going to the Y daily from a very young age.  When my dad took me and I was too old to go to the men's room with him, I changed at home or in the car.  He was not prohibited in helping me change in any way.  No one, in any case cited, is being barred from helping their dc change after swim practice.  They may not have access to one certain room or area to do it in, but to claim that means they can't help their DC change their clothes is silly.  And in the case of the OP, she had access to a room she could use with her son without breaking any rules or making anyone uncomfortable.

[EmseB]

Still, really and truly NO good comes of latching on the most negative connotations as to why someone behaved in any given way. I would specifically say this definitely applies to people speculating as to why others are modest. And to people deigning to assume who had special needs and not. And to a lot of things.

 

Sorry, didn't see the edit before I posted.

 

The problem when it comes to to the OP, is what to do about the woman who already made it clear she was not going to have her son in the men's room and lied about being able to use the family room.  And an older-looking boy who others don't feel comfortable changing or showering or being naked in front of.  And what to do about that.

 

So, ascribing negative connotations or no, or giving her all the benefits of doubts, if someone is uncomfortable and wants to report it, it's probably going to hit this woman in a negative way, if what the OP said about the initial interaction was accurate (I have no reason to believe the OP was making it up).  In general, confronting someone who knows the rules well enough to lie about them to try to excuse her actions is not going to be a positive encounter, IME.  But you're right, she couldn't have had all the best intentions going into things and just got caught in an uncomfortable situation she didn't know how to deal with.

 

Further, this is a problem that is difficult to deal with in the moment, because it seems like generally someone who would be uncomfortable with the kid being brought in is probably already in a state of undress and unlikely to be able to run to the front desk and have the staff handle it.  So directly addressing her seemed to provoke a negative response.  But, addressing that aspect is "latching onto the most negative connotations"?  I don't know how to discuss the OP then.

 

But you're right, maybe it's all a moot point and the woman won't bring him in again because she's now caught on that others don't want her to.  That would probably be the best case scenario.

[LucyStoner]

The rule at my Y is 6 and over can't be in the opposite gender changing rooms.

 

Perhaps I am a reckless inconsiderate clod but as I said, the women's changing rooms at our Y are very large, with lots of private areas and after my son's class is usually basically empty. A few times I have ducked in there to change him. I do make sure it's all but empty and we duck into a curtained off stall right away. No one sees him or is seen by him naked. And he is sometimes mistaken for a girl anyways. This totally breaks the rule.

 

It also breaks the rule to leave the pool and changing areas in your wet swim suit and walk though the lobby in a swim suit. We do that too sometimes, to change him in the car.

 

It's also against the rules to give him a small mess free snack while we wait for the family changing rooms, which I also sometimes do. We all make decisions based on shifting information.

 

If I made someone uncomfortable doing ANY of this, I would be sorry. That said, I know that listening to him panic or break down would be extremely unpleasant for everyone in earshot too.

 

Calculated risks.

 

I suppose I could stay home with him. But then we delay him learning to swim and him adjusting to be less of an anxious basket case in these sorts of group situations. His therapist said to have him in things like this to avoid having him get more anxious. So while staying home is an option it is a bad option for him and others long term.

 

But then I am totally the woman who, thanks to a bladder issue that goes back to my own childhood, will totally use the empty men's room rather than wait in a long line for the women's room. Between that or wetting my pants, I'll use the wrong restroom. Inconsiderate rule breaker. But my pants stay dry! ;)

Edited January 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[poppy]

Oh my goodness. Being annoyed with an unsure of how to deal with a woman bringing an age inappropriate kid into a locker room does not mean always ascribing the most possible negative intent. It means sometimes you don't know what to do about annoying rule breakers. Regardless of their intent.

 

I am of the opinion that swim lessons at the inexpensive gym is not an inalienable right. But women's freedom to decide who gets to see them when they are vulnerable and undressed kind of is . So I err on the side of the naked women.

[8circles]

The same scenario and set of facts can be described to sound more positive or more negative. I think the vast majority of posters in this thread are describing it in the most negative way. The example in the op was about a child that looked 10 but may be younger. Now he's described as a tween which could be up to 13. SMH.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The same scenario and set of facts can be described to sound more positive or more negative. I think the vast majority of posters in this thread are describing it in the most negative way. The example in the op was about a child that looked 10 but may be younger. Now he's described as a tween which could be up to 13. SMH.

 

:confused1:  9- and 10-year-olds are also tweens, no? So the term is accurate if we're talking about a child who might be as old as 10? 

[poppy]

The same scenario and set of facts can be described to sound more positive or more negative. I think the vast majority of posters in this thread are describing it in the most negative way. The example in the op was about a child that looked 10 but may be younger. Now he's described as a tween which could be up to 13. SMH.

 

If he was 10, do you think it's OK?

[EmseB]

The rule at my Y is 6 and over can't be in the opposite gender changing rooms.

 

Perhaps I am a reckless inconsiderate clod but as I said, the women's changing rooms at our Y are very large, with lots of private areas and after my son's class is usually basically empty. A few times I have ducked in there to change him. I do make sure it's all but empty and we duck into a curtained off stall right away. No one sees him or is seen by him naked. And he is sometimes mistaken for the girl anyways. This totally breaks the rule.

 

It also breaks the rule to leave the pool and changing areas in your wet swim suit and walk though the lobby in a swim suit. We do that too sometimes, to change him in the car.

 

It's also against the rules to give him a small mess free snack while we wait for the family changing rooms, which I also sometimes do. We all make decisions based on shifting information.

 

If I made someone uncomfortable doing ANY of this, I would be sorry. That said, I know that listening to him panic or break down would be extremely unpleasant for everyone in earshot too.

 

Calculated risks.

 

I suppose I could stay home with him. But then we delay him learning to swim and him adjusting to be less of an anxious basket case in these sorts of group situations. His therapist said to have him in things like this to avoid having him get more anxious. So while staying home is an option it is a bad option for him and others long term.

 

But then I am totally the woman who, thanks to a bladder issue that goes back to my own childhood, will totally use the empty men's room rather than wait in a long line for the women's room. Between that or wetting my pants, I'll use the wrong restroom. Inconsiderate rule breaker. But my pants stay dry! ;)

 

In none of those examples are you deciding for other people who gets to see them naked.  And surely you can see why the staff would not want wet floors in the lobby, or snacks on the pool deck, right?  Like it makes sense from a community perspective with a ton of people using one facility, right?  You surely do these things in a reasonable manner, but they can't account for everyone being as reasonable as you are about the standards.  Going wet across the lobby floor is not just a calculated risk that you could get caught, it's a calculated risk that no one will slip and hurt themselves on the water you leave behind.  Bringing snacks in for your kid that needs to eat or they might throw a fit is a calculated risk that no food will get in the pool and that it doesn't become a widespread thing that people do.  Sure, your kid may need food immediately after swimming, but that's not immediately clear to every other kid watching him eat while they have to wait.

 

The point is, in the OP it isn't just about a "calculated risk" for the one mom who wants to bring in her kid, it's a decision that everyone in the locker room must be naked in front of a tween boy (and yes, I consider 9-12 tweens, I'm sorry if I have that terminology incorrect).  None of your examples are about forcing someone else to give up expected privacy from the opposite gender in a situation where nudity is involved.  And that is the point of the OP.

 

I actually think your last example is a great one -- you said you'd use and empty men's room.  But would you run into a men's room that is in use, with men at urinals?  I too would use any empty bathroom in an emergency.  I wouldn't walk in on anyone else using the restroom, though.  Just as I wouldn't allow my 8yo son to walk in on a room of naked ladies and girls changing their clothing or showering if those women had the expectation that they were in a ladies room.

[EmseB]

The same scenario and set of facts can be described to sound more positive or more negative. I think the vast majority of posters in this thread are describing it in the most negative way. The example in the op was about a child that looked 10 but may be younger. Now he's described as a tween which could be up to 13. SMH.

 

Tween is the correct term for 9-12 year olds, no?  A 13 year old is a teenager, thus, thirteen right?  I balked when someone refered to my 8yo as a tween, but it's been more than one person so I assumed that was proper usage?  How is it negative?

[Word Nerd]

Deleted.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Word Nerd

[poppy]

Maybe we could make the distinction between prepubescent boys and pubescent boys.

 

I think it's unreasonable, and somewhat unhealthy, to treat prepubescent boys as anything other than children. The reason I think 8 is a compromise age for those like me, who don't care, and those who do care, is because most boys 8 and under are still firmly children.

 

Unless you feel that seeing bottoms and boobs in a normal changing situation is dangerous to children, I can't see what the fuss is about over 8 and unders.

 

People tend to respect rules which are reasonable. They will tend to not respect rules with are unreasonable. If you want more people to follow the rules, make the rules reasonable.

 

I do think it's reasonable that pubescent males are not allowed in women's changing rooms. I don't care, but others have a right to care.

 

So I think setting the age limit to the higher end of what we can safely describe as child (and that isn't 6, for goodness sake, a 6 year old is still practically a baby!) is going to result in more compliance all round.

 

I would not comply with a rule that was absurd - and some of the rules mentioned here as norms are absurd. Swimming lessons aren't a luxury here, as I think Melissa pointed out so I don't accept the 'like it or leave it' attitude either.

 

Thankfully, our local pools had the very sensible under-8 rule. We also, thankfully, had sufficient family rooms for different-gender pairs of any age.

 

And boys between 8-11 generally transitioned to the men's changing rooms as they preferred.

If swimming lessons aren't a luxury , surely there are several places that offer them?

 

Not trying to be contentious , I'm just confused by the idea that parents do not have any choice or power to decide in these scenarios.

 

I agree with the PPs who said it's likely the age cutoff is 6 because it's likely any kids from 4-8 would look 6-ish. If the age cutoff was 8, surely there would be people piping up that their 8 year old looks 11.

[poppy]

Maybe we could make the distinction between prepubescent boys and pubescent boys.

 

I think it's unreasonable, and somewhat unhealthy, to treat prepubescent boys as anything other than children. The reason I think 8 is a compromise age for those like me, who don't care, and those who do care, is because most boys 8 and under are still firmly children.

 

Unless you feel that seeing bottoms and boobs in a normal changing situation is dangerous to children, I can't see what the fuss is about over 8 and unders.

 

People tend to respect rules which are reasonable. They will tend to not respect rules with are unreasonable. If you want more people to follow the rules, make the rules reasonable.

 

I do think it's reasonable that pubescent males are not allowed in women's changing rooms. I don't care, but others have a right to care.

 

So I think setting the age limit to the higher end of what we can safely describe as child (and that isn't 6, for goodness sake, a 6 year old is still practically a baby!) is going to result in more compliance all round.

 

I would not comply with a rule that was absurd - and some of the rules mentioned here as norms are absurd. Swimming lessons aren't a luxury here, as I think Melissa pointed out so I don't accept the 'like it or leave it' attitude either.

 

Thankfully, our local pools had the very sensible under-8 rule. We also, thankfully, had sufficient family rooms for different-gender pairs of any age.

 

And boys between 8-11 generally transitioned to the men's changing rooms as they preferred.

If swimming lessons aren't a luxury , surely there are several places that offer them?

 

Not trying to be contentious , I'm just confused by the idea that parents do not have any choice or power to decide in these scenarios.

 

I agree with the PPs who said it's likely the age cutoff is 6 because it's likely any kids from 4-8 would look 6-ish. If the age cutoff was 8, surely there would be people piping up that their 8 year old looks 11.

[8circles]

Tween is the correct term for 9-12 year olds, no? A 13 year old is a teenager, thus, thirteen right? I balked when someone refered to my 8yo as a tween, but it's been more than one person so I assumed that was proper usage? How is it negative?

The term tween isn't negative, but I'm pretty sure a much larger percentage of 12/13 (some definitions end at 12, some at 13) year olds are in puberty than a ten year-old. So using the term tween instead of age-ten increases the age of the child in question. That's making the scenario much worse sounding. Ymmv.

Edited January 30, 2016 by 8circles

[8circles]

If he was 10, do you think it's OK?

I have a 10 year old. I would not take him into the women's dressing room.

 

I don't think 10 is old enough for me to automatically be too old. It would depend on the situation.

 

I also have a 12 year old. There is a HUGE difference between their maturity levels and how pubescent they are. It would be misleading to group them together in this kind of situation.

[8circles]

I don't get her point either. I think some people just like to be contrary.

No, I just have a different opinion than many people here.

 

There I go being contrary again lol.

 

I don't think I've insulted anybody here, I simply see the situation differently. I don't know why you need to start with personal comments.

[EmseB]

Maybe we could make the distinction between prepubescent boys and pubescent boys. 

 

I think it's unreasonable, and somewhat unhealthy, to treat prepubescent boys as anything other than children. The reason I think 8 is a compromise age for those like me, who don't care, and those who do care, is because most boys 8 and under are still firmly children.

 

Unless you feel that seeing bottoms and boobs in a normal changing situation is dangerous to children, I can't see what the fuss is about over 8 and unders.

 

People tend to respect rules which are reasonable. They will tend to not respect rules with are unreasonable. If you want more people to follow the rules, make the rules reasonable. 

 

I do think it's reasonable that pubescent males are not allowed in women's changing rooms. I don't care, but others have a right to care. 

 

So I think setting the age limit to the higher end of what we can safely describe as child (and that isn't 6, for goodness sake, a 6 year old is still practically a baby!) is going to result in more compliance all round.

 

I would not comply with a rule that was absurd - and some of the rules mentioned here as norms are absurd. Swimming lessons aren't a luxury here, as I think Melissa pointed out so I don't accept the 'like it or leave it' attitude either.

 

Thankfully, our local pools had the very sensible under-8 rule. We also, thankfully, had sufficient family rooms for different-gender pairs of any age. 

 

And boys between 8-11 generally transitioned to the men's changing rooms as they preferred. 

 

I think I agree with this, I think 7 or 8 is a good cutoff.  However, if I found the rules different at some place I was interested in attending, I'd either try to have the rules changed via the administration, change my kids elsewhere, or not sign up to use that facility.

 

I wouldn't simply ignore the rules because I didn't like them, mostly because I'd feel like they would then have the right to kick me out and I'd end up forfeiting whatever money I'd forked over for lessons or membership.  In other words, I wouldn't expect the staff to simply let me break the rules because I felt they were ridiculous.  Especially given a situation where I had other options like a family changing room.

 

I also tend to wonder, not necessarily about grown women and men, but about 8-10 year old girls who are becoming sensitive of boys in their own peer group seeing them naked at that age.  I think I would want parents of the opposite gendered kids to respect that sort of thing for my daughter if the rule was 6 or 7yo.

[Word Nerd]

No, I just have a different opinion than many people here.

 

There I go being contrary again lol.

 

I don't think I've insulted anybody here, I simply see the situation differently. I don't know why you need to start with personal comments.

I agree and apologize. I will delete the post.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Sadie, you're missing the point. Women in the women's locker room are not concerned about how the little boy feels. That's completely ancillary (and the mother's responsibility). Women in the locker room care about how THEY feel. In general, the parameters for locker rooms are set accordingly. I really could not care less whether some boy in the locker room with his mom is embarrassed. If I, my daughters, or other women are made to feel uncomfortable, then the situation is not working. As evidenced here, the majority of us WOULD, in fact, be uncomfortable with a 7- to 10-year-old boy in the locker room.

Edited January 30, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[bettyandbob]

I think women should be able to count on people sticking to rule regarding who is in the space where they are changing.

 

It should especially be expected when the facility provides separate family changing.

 

When there is family changing available, I don't think it matters what age or if the rule is no opposite sex children. Since the facility provided a place where families can be together then parents in the situation should follow the rule.

 

I understand making exceptions when there is no family changing.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I'm not sure if TWTM is a good cross section of society.

 

Like I said above, there has to be a sensible compromise age, between those who don't want a boy over the age of 4 to see them in the nude and those who couldn't give a toss.

 

8 does not seem to me to be an unreasonable compromise.

 

The more reasonable the compromise, the more chance people will play by the rules. Win-win.

 

Actually, I think people here (or maybe HSers in general) tend to be more child-centered than out in the "real world," which would lend itself to being more tolerant of higher ages in this situation. In the US, anyway. 

 

And given the initial scenario, frankly, the most reasonable solution would be to use the family changing rooms provided for just such a purpose. That is, after all, exactly what they were designed for. There seems to be little sense in breaking rules unnecessarily, making other women uncomfortable, and provoking confrontations when the compromise is quite literally built into the facility. 

[EmseB]

I see a lot of girls that age embarrassed about changing in front of anyone, whether young boy or girl or grown woman.

 

They tend to change in a corner with mom holding up a towel to provide privacy.

 

I do ignore ridiculous rules. Didn't someone here mention a rule about over 2's ? That's insane. 

Personally, if the rule was 6 and under, I'd still think it was nuts but I'd use the family room.

 

8 just seems to me a good compromise age. Not silly, but low enough to exclude boys starting or going through puberty. Plus most over-8's can handle post-swim waiting much better. And can do a better job of getting undressed/dried/dressed.

 

When you have people who think 5 is too old, and people, like me, who are Ok with co-ed all the time, you have to find a sensible compromise point.

 

To the bolded, I see this, but I also think the scenario is a lot different if you're in a ladies room and expect only ladies to be there, vs. you're about to go to swim team or group swim time and your teammate/friend who you have to spend daily practice with gets to see you naked because his mom doesn't want him using the men's.

 

As for ignoring the rules, if the staff confronts you or asks you to leave?  What then?  I mean, it's their prerogative to set the rules, right?  And enforce them?

 

And I agree that two or three is ridiculous.  It is something I'd deal with before I got in a bind with a wet kid after swim lessons, though.  I wouldn't just sign up and then expect them to allow me to do what I pleased.

 

I don't think 6 or up is bad.  I remember my brother stopped going through the ladies with us at that age at the Y.

[zoobie]

The option isn't to send small children into a situation for which they are unprepared alone or forego swim lessons. The facility provides family changing rooms. Even if you're a nudist and don't care who sees you and yours, there are others who do. The rule is over 4, use the family rooms or same-gender room. You may think it's a stupid rule, but that's something you should take up with the facility and not decide on your own that your opinion is more important than everyone else's.

 

Having an age cutoff makes much more sense than a pre or post puberty cutoff. It's not abnormal for that to be a huge range. I would absolutely not want to change in front of random 13-15 year old boys even if they haven't gone through puberty. My 12 year old daughter would make many men uncomfortable if she were in the men's locker room. (She would never go in, but assuming some type of developmental disabilities that made her not uncomfortable with the situation.) If you and your child are comfortable with them being nude in front of others and they're past the cut off, change them in a public area. Your personal privacy should be under your control. If it doesn't matter to you, great. But you shouldn't get to decide for others. Taking a child over the posted age limit in to a locker room violates the privacy of the people inside who have looked at the rules and decided to change there. You shouldn't unilaterally get to decide what another person's privacy comfort level is.

[LucyStoner]

In none of those examples are you deciding for other people who gets to see them naked. And surely you can see why the staff would not want wet floors in the lobby, or snacks on the pool deck, right? Like it makes sense from a community perspective with a ton of people using one facility, right? You surely do these things in a reasonable manner, but they can't account for everyone being as reasonable as you are about the standards. Going wet across the lobby floor is not just a calculated risk that you could get caught, it's a calculated risk that no one will slip and hurt themselves on the water you leave behind. Bringing snacks in for your kid that needs to eat or they might throw a fit is a calculated risk that no food will get in the pool and that it doesn't become a widespread thing that people do. Sure, your kid may need food immediately after swimming, but that's not immediately clear to every other kid watching him eat while they have to wait.

 

The point is, in the OP it isn't just about a "calculated risk" for the one mom who wants to bring in her kid, it's a decision that everyone in the locker room must be naked in front of a tween boy (and yes, I consider 9-12 tweens, I'm sorry if I have that terminology incorrect). None of your examples are about forcing someone else to give up expected privacy from the opposite gender in a situation where nudity is involved. And that is the point of the OP.

 

I actually think your last example is a great one -- you said you'd use and empty men's room. But would you run into a men's room that is in use, with men at urinals? I too would use any empty bathroom in an emergency. I wouldn't walk in on anyone else using the restroom, though. Just as I wouldn't allow my 8yo son to walk in on a room of naked ladies and girls changing their clothing or showering if those women had the expectation that they were in a ladies room.

Walking to the car in a wet suit is the exact solution that many, including I think you, have suggested over and over as a no duh workaround to the locker room caregiver/gender gap.

 

Now you are saying that when I do that, I am risking other people slipping. Sheesh.

 

You really want it both ways here, JodiSue. At least that is the impression I can take if I wanted to assume the very worst of you.

 

Of course, as you probably can guess, my son dries off and is wrapped in a towel. And the lobby is carpeted.

 

Similarly, by no mess snack I mean a packet of fruit and only after we are off the pool deck and waiting in the locker area outside the family dressing rooms. If someone needs to wonder why a child is eating a small snack just before dinner I can only assume that person is a robot or not a parent.

 

On a good, or rather ideal day, I don't have to stay late to chat with the instructor because my son had some problem or another in the class. I snag a family room with a shortish wait. My son puts on his own clothes and remembers to put on his shoes. We walk to the car with the almost dry spun out suit in his swim bag and then and only then crack out an easy cheap snack I brought from home rather than bought in the vending machine. And the traffic fairies smile on me and we make it to get big brother plus often my niece and nephew without making anyone wait and then get home before all the kids are starving to the point of contemplating cannibalism. When we arrive we find dinner waiting because I put something in the crockpot that morning AND I remembered to turn the crock pot on, lol. And a winged rainbow unicorn flies over our home. A totally ideal day though is, as anyone can probably well imagine, a rare instance.

 

Sometimes we cut corners, be that Costco food court dinner or cautiously using the women's room with a 7 rather than 6 year old boy in tow.

 

I've had people guess my 7 year old is anywhere from 4-9 (9 when he was 6).

 

Keeping kids with multiple challenges home until they can spontaneously learn all this stuff (somehow magically without any skill building or actual work) is an intolerant and unloving concept. From a moral perspective and being considerate, it doesn't actually compute for me. I do assume however that is NOT what you are suggesting I actually do but trust me as a mom who had two sons I have to carefully plan for most contingencies for, that is the message that sometimes people send. I wish that I didn't have to juggle all this and we could just go with the flow but as always, wishing ain't getting.

[Bluegoat]

I think even if we only assume the lady had benign intentions and didn't think it would be an issue, her judgement was pretty off.  There is a huge difference betwen taking a child who is right around the cut-off age, or even above it but still pretty young (say five in a facility where the cut-off is three), with a child of ten, a good five years past the cut-off.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

 lol, I think posters here are a lot more conservative and modesty focused that people where I live. Which is fine. But possibly not an accurate cross section of the global swimming society. 

 

I don't personally think I have a right to change in same sex privacy if that excludes mothers with children under 8 from a comfortable, convenient swimming experience.

 

You can't convince me I'm some unreasonable outlier here, lol. 

 

I'm not sure that you'd find this issue necessarily corresponds to a conservative-modesty thing for everyone.  It's pretty common on the liberal/progressive side to see a really strong sense of personal physical autonomy, privacy, safe space ideas, and that sort of thing, as important, which could just as easily come into play in this scenario.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

 lol, I think posters here are a lot more conservative and modesty focused that people where I live. Which is fine. But possibly not an accurate cross section of the global swimming society. 

 

I don't personally think I have a right to change in same sex privacy if that excludes mothers with children under 8 from a comfortable, convenient swimming experience.

 

You can't convince me I'm some unreasonable outlier here, lol. 

 

Yes, but you're also in a different country, so I'm thinking your sense of US citizens' feelings on this wouldn't be quite accurate. Do you not think there's a different cultural norm there than there is here in this regard? 

 

About the bolded, there are separate spaces specifically for these families to use. How is that excluding them from a comfortable, convenient swimming experience? And what about the comfortable, convenient swimming experience of all the females in the locker room? If we're going purely by numbers, I'm thinking the kid and mom are going to lose.

 

Who is talking about 13 ? I suggested 8. Because the majority of 8 year olds are safely prepubescent. 

 

You keep saying this. Why does it matter? Whether or not the little boy is aroused by his experience is not at issue here. Do you really not see that that is not part of this discussion? 

Edited January 30, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I'm not sure that you'd find this issue necessarily corresponds to a conservative-modesty thing for everyone.  It's pretty common on the liberal/progressive side to see a really strong sense of personal physical autonomy, privacy, safe space ideas, and that sort of thing, as important, which could just as easily come into play in this scenario.

 

This. I'm as liberal as they come. I'm an atheist. I have less than no interest in a modesty culture beyond the fact that I believe that everyone has the right to decide for themselves what their personal comfort level is as long as they're not forcing it on others. 

 

ETA: And I love leggings as pants, for whoever wants to wear them. No tunics required!

Edited January 30, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

AndyJoy, you're going to have some work to do the next time you see this woman. You'll need to do some sleuthing to find out exactly how old her kids are, what she has against the family rooms, whether she's liberal or conservative, etc. We're going to be expecting some answers next week :lol:

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Pools are shared community resources. Everybody's rights need to be balanced.

 

So very, very true.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

 You are totally misunderstanding me, and I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not.

 

It's not about arousal. I'm kind of icked out that you would think it would be. Ugh. That's just...omg. 

 

Then...why does it matter? What does the line between pubescent and pre-pubescent mean to you? You're the one who keeps bringing it up  :confused1: I'm asking you WHY.

[Bluegoat]

Whatever. 8 and under is not extreme in other parts of the world. 

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said?

[EmseB]

Walking to the car in a wet suit is the exact solution that many, including I think you, have suggested over and over as a no duh workaround to the locker room caregiver/gender gap.

 

Now you are saying that when I do that, I am risking other people slipping. Sheesh.

 

You really want it both ways here, JodiSue. At least that is the impression I can take if I wanted to assume the very worst of you.

 

 

 

No, I'm addressing your examples of breaking rules and why a facility my choose to enforce such rules for the good of everyone, not just to personally inconvenience you.  I actually was careful to note that I'm sure you do not do it in such a way that is careless that might cause a slippery floor (or in your case damaged carpet or whatever scenario is applicable to you). 

 

I then addressed the example that was comparable on your list to the OP, which was going into an empty restroom of the opposite gender.  I thought that was very applicable to the situation because you specified the restroom is empty and no one is being made uncomfortable by the presence of someone unexpected.  Whereas an older boy in a ladies room imposes your standards of what rules are okay to break onto other people's personal views surrounding nudity.

 

The suggestions from earlier in the conversation to avoid having to use the ladies locker room were a completely unrelated part of the conversation and had nothing to do with the examples you gave as examples of when you break rules.  At that time I suggested a towel, boots, and a parka for wintertime and assumed that no one was thinking I was suggesting taking a dripping wet child out of the pool directly into the lobby to their car.  I think the towel was sort of a given, but perhaps I should have been more specific.  To be honest, if I went to a swim club where they said I couldn't bring my three year old into the women's locker room, and I couldn't take him in his suit across the lobby, and they didn't provide a family changing room, and they said I couldn't have snacks outside the pool deck area, I'd be looking for another club.  That is not the place for me as a mom of three boys and an infant girl whom I often attend lessons with on my own.  I would suspect that they were not looking for young families to join.  On the other hand, I wouldn't join, disregard all their rules, and then expect good customer service or even for them to allow me to continue attending.

But, clearly we're talking past each other at this point and the horse is probably dead.

[73349]

I think even if we only assume the lady had benign intentions and didn't think it would be an issue, her judgement was pretty off.  There is a huge difference betwen taking a child who is right around the cut-off age, or even above it but still pretty young (say five in a facility where the cut-off is three), with a child of ten, a good five years past the cut-off.

 

Except that people are crummy at guessing kids' ages, and often think five-year-olds are eight or even ten. Any age cut-off is going to be problematic for boys who look older than they really are, and conflict will arise because girls or women believe they're breaking the rule if they're not.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Which is why having reasonable age limits is not the extreme view you think it is.

 

Your right to get changed in same sex privacy doesn't trump all other rights.

 

I sincerely hope you are agitating for extra family rooms, and spaces for moms with boys who have delays or are autistic or have other needs that make sending them off at 2 or 4 or 6 not possible...because otherwise it's a simple case of you valuing your convenience over that of other families...pot meet kettle, in other words.

 

I haven't ever had the need to? I have literally never seen this become an issue in any pool club, homeschool swim, public pool, or gym I've ever been to. There are always family changing rooms or rules in place that negate such issues. So I'm not agitating for anything in this regard, since it seems to already be handled very nicely. If I found it to be an issue somewhere, I'm sure I'd agitate accordingly.

 

It's quite clear if you bother to read the post. 

 

It's obviously not clear, since I'm still confused as to how the terminology you're using relates to this issue. But OK.

[EmseB]

Which is why having reasonable age limits is not the extreme view you think it is.

 

Your right to get changed in same sex privacy doesn't trump all other rights.

 

I sincerely hope you are agitating for extra family rooms, and spaces for moms with boys who have delays or are autistic or have other needs that make sending them off at 2 or 4 or 6 not possible...because otherwise it's a simple case of you valuing your convenience over that of other families...pot meet kettle, in other words.

 

Hypothetically:  If I join a swim club with a ladies locker room and they have an established rule that says boys ages 6 and up are not allowed in, am I not allowed to have expectations that align with that?  For myself and my hypothetical daughters and sons that I have to deal with?  Should I join assuming they mean that I, JodiSue, can have an exception and take my 8yo in if I have certain issues that require it?

 

I mean, you're talking about rights, but if the club establishes a rule, even if you think it's foolish, is it foolish for someone who joins the club to expect the rule to be enforced and followed by fellow patrons?

 

As I said to Katie, I wouldn't join a club that doesn't accommodate mixed-gender family situations because...why would I?  I am a mom of three boys, and it would be foolish for me to join a club that said I couldn't somehow reasonably get them to and from the swimming pool according to their established rules and facilities.  They've lost my business if that's the case.  But if I join a club and sign a contract for lessons or membership or simply attending means I've agreed to abide by their policies, then I don't expect them to be lenient with me because I want to break those policies.  It doesn't make sense to me.

 

For the record, around the house I'm nursing my baby, my older boys see boobs and nudity because it's part of life in a family in a shared house.  I'm not wearing a turtleneck all day long and hiding in the bedroom when I need to feed the baby, and I have to leave the bathroom door open to hear the toddler.  It's not about my personal comfort level at all.

Edited January 31, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

Nothing probably. I'm just annoyed that anyone would think hyper-conservative WTM is a good indicator of anything, other than homeschooling and maybe even not then. 

 

You are probably correct.

 

As well as people who think having small boys in a change room is somehow wrong, you can have selfish people who value their own right to privacy higher than anyone else's right to an ability to use a community facility. 

 

I don't think though that if you look at the people posting, I don't think it especially corresponds to socially conservative views saying people should expect the rule should be followed (at least in the spirit) and 10 is to old.

 

I don't know - most of the cut-offs I've seen are pretty reasonable.  The ones for two and three some people have mentioned are a little bizarre and I haven't encountered that - I can only think that they are trying to encourage people with toddlers to use the family room.  Five seems a touch young, too, I doubt most people would be bothered by a five year old.  Six or seven though, eight at the outside - kids that age are getting into school age and are in a different place mentally, and barring unusual limits they should be capable of dressing themselves or getting help and problem solving if necessary, even in a men's room.  So those all seem to me to be fairly reasonable ages to say they can no longer be in opposite sex change rooms.

 

And from the other side - there are also a variety of backgrounds and personal experiences people have relating to privacy expectations without being selfish.  There are people who go to the public pool wearing full body coverage for suits, and they are pretty reasonable to expect not to have ten year olds in there when they change.  The women's change room is the logical place for them to expect that - if they go to the family rooms they will be in a more mixed environment and anyway will be taking up space that would be more useful for people with young kids.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Artichoke]

There was a recent Free Range Kids blog post, in which a home school mom complained about not being allowed to send her school age boys she decided were capable into the men's, because they were past age to be allowed in the women's. They were told they HAD to use the family facilities, which were always busy, often in use by individuals.

 

It just goes to show that some people will find it unacceptable no matter what you do.

http://www.freerangekids.com/why-is-my-son-not-allowed-to-change-in-the-mens-locker-room-at-the-y/

 

I would love to see the gender neutral/family set-up become the default or main option in family/kid oriented facilities.

 

 

We actually have this at ourYMCA.  There are three locker rooms -- men, women, and family.  The gender of the adult does not matter as long as the children are twelve and younger.  The family locker room is set up in a u-shape with three private family room/showers on one side, then sinks and bathroom stalls in the middle, and an open locker configuration on the third.  It's been by far my favorite set-up. 

[zoobie]

Who is talking about 13 ? I suggested 8. Because the majority of 8 year olds are safely prepubescent.

 

Nobody is talking about forcing women and girls to change with teenage boys if they don't want to do that.

Some people were debating the definition of tween and then you brought up puberty. I'm not sure how puberty came into this at all to be honest.

 

No one is being precluded from swimming. There are family changing rooms. Why is this woman's convenience more important than other women's desire for changing in a same-sex locker room? AndyJoy said at least one woman expressed discomfort with the 10 year old. That woman had gotten undressed based on the rules of the facility which are females and male children 4 and under. Her rights shouldn't be trumped by this woman or any other who thinks the rule is stupid. There has to be a cutoff somewhere. If it's 4, people bring in 10 year olds. If it's 8, what will they do? Lobby for a change if you don't like the rule, but telling everyone else to suck it is really self-centered and inconsiderate.

[73349]

Does it matter if the pool is private or public, I wonder?

 

A private pool costs a lot of money to join here, but there are fewer members and it may be easier to lobby for rule changes; yet having fewer members may also mean it's harder to change the use of the building, such as to allocate more space for family changing.

 

A public pool here is city-funded but also costs a few dollars to enter. Maybe there's a greater responsibility to accommodate as many people as possible.

[heartlikealion]

If people are changing out in the open then I do think it'd be best for the mom to find another solution. I don't agree with forcing parents to send very young children alone into the men's room, but I guess that's what the family room is for? I would be very worried about slips, even if I was in ear shot. I might go as far as to have the 10 yr old sit on a towel in the car if I we didn't live far and just shower/change at home. I hate public facilities for those things, anyway lol. What would I do? I would tell staff, discreetly. Maybe via telephone so no one knew!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not a free range parent, but this is frankly ridiculous. I'm sure it's all about liability. I think the posters who mentioned the fact that some locker rooms have cutoffs that don't even mesh with their local laws about leaving children unattended are on to something.

They aren't as no reasonable interpretation of laws about leaving a child unattended would require parents to follow school age children into the restroom or locker room.

[SKL]

I want to know why people are so busy trying to guess the ages of random kids in the change room. I go in, I focus on getting out of my swimmers, dried, into my clothes and packed up. I'm not even looking at anything other than the wall where my clothes are hanging. I'm certainly not making sure to check out all the other people in the change room.

 

It's not their age, it's their behavior and how their presence affects the girls in there.

 

Again, if my kids age 8/9 tell me that a school-aged boy staring at the naked females makes them uncomfortable, and the posted sign has a cutoff age much less than school age, and there is another option regardless of whether the kid is younger than he looks or has special needs or whatever, then the mom should re-think her strategy.  The mom should be considerate and notice what is happening around her.

 

It's sad that signs are needed at all.  This is kind of a new thing.  Until recently, I never saw a boy over age 6 or 7 in a ladies' room - and in the case of a boy over toddler age, their mom would make sure they were not looking around at naked people.  Parents had enough sense to notice if their boys (or girls) were getting too old to be in the opposite gender room.  So now there is this relatively new idea that a 6yo is "practically just a baby" and as long as a boy isn't in full puberty, he's basically the same as a girl.  So now we need signs to remind people that no, your school-aged boy is not a girl, and this matters to a lot of people.

 

The signs theoretically reflect the local norms.  If a facility has a sign that seems ridiculous considering the local mores, I suggest the users address it with the management.  I tend to agree that 2yo and 3yo is young for a cutoff.  4yo is young, but borderline enough that I'd obey it by using the family rooms (if possible).  In any case I would teach young kids (even my girls) not to be looking around at people dressing in the locker room.

[SKL]

Am I the only person who wonders why anyone would pass up the chance to use a family bathroom if it was accessible?  I admit to having used them sometimes when my girls were very young and didn't listen very well when we were in the ladies' locker room.  I would never do it if there was a wait (in consideration for mixed gender families), but when it was just us, wow, how much nicer to have the room all to ourselves.  If I had a good excuse, like, one of my little kids was a boy or had special needs, I'd never use the big room.

 

Socially, though, kids join swim team as young as 6 and these kids as a peer group do not get parental help in the locker room.  Moms and dads sit in the lobby and wait for our kids to emerge dressed, or drive up to the pick-up area to collect them.  I recall once a little girl came out in a towel and told her dad she could not find her underwear.  He coached her on what to do and she went back in.  Sometimes the girls sit in there and chat too long, but that's part of the deal.  A school-aged child is able to understand if the parent tells her that she needs to hurry and be out in x minutes or else ___ will happen.  And parents need to be somewhat flexible.  Don't plan something if the kids acting like kids will ruin everyone's life.

Edited January 31, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

And I keep thinking how it would go over if I sent my girls through the men's locker room at age 8 or even 6.  Assuming they would do it, which I doubt, but maybe if I bribed them really well.  I am sure all the men would be like, "no big deal, let's not be too uptight, she's not in puberty after all!  See, look no boobs or body hair.  No problem!  Now where did I leave my gotchies ...."

Edited January 31, 2016 by SKL

[zoobie]

And I keep thinking how it would go over if I sent my girls through the men's locker room at age 8 or even 6. Assuming they would do it, which I doubt, but maybe if I bribed them really well. I am sure all the men would be like, "no big deal, let's not be too uptight, she's not in puberty after all! See, look no boobs or body hair. No problem! Now where did I leave my gotchies ...."

I think it would make quite a few men uncomfortable and leave them wondering if they'd wandered into a Dateline sting.

[Sherry in OH]

It's not their age, it's their behavior and how their presence affects the girls in there.

 

Again, if my kids age 8/9 tell me that a school-aged boy staring at the naked females makes them uncomfortable, and the posted sign has a cutoff age much less than school age, and there is another option regardless of whether the kid is younger than he looks or has special needs or whatever, then the mom should re-think her strategy.  The mom should be considerate and notice what is happening around her.

 

It's sad that signs are needed at all.  This is kind of a new thing.  Until recently, I never saw a boy over age 6 or 7 in a ladies' room - and in the case of a boy over toddler age, their mom would make sure they were not looking around at naked people.  Parents had enough sense to notice if their boys (or girls) were getting too old to be in the opposite gender room.  So now there is this relatively new idea that a 6yo is "practically just a baby" and as long as a boy isn't in full puberty, he's basically the same as a girl.  So now we need signs to remind people that no, your school-aged boy is not a girl, and this matters to a lot of people.

 

The signs theoretically reflect the local norms.  If a facility has a sign that seems ridiculous considering the local mores, I suggest the users address it with the management.  I tend to agree that 2yo and 3yo is young for a cutoff.  4yo is young, but borderline enough that I'd obey it by using the family rooms (if possible).  In any case I would teach young kids (even my girls) not to be looking around at people dressing in the locker room.

 

I suspect the age 2 and 3 limitations were instituted because parents disregarded the age 5 cut-off.  Also, it is much easier to distinguish a young toddler from a school age child than an older preschooler from a young school age child. No one expects these children to be self-sufficient.  Signs state that families with opposite sex children are to use the family locker rooms.  

 

An aquatics facilities manual (U.S. version) suggests age 5 as a cutoff for children in the opposite sex locker room.  This is because at about that age children are beginning to understand the differences between men and women.  Having them in the locker room past that age is viewed as inappropriate for both the children and adults using the facilities.  The need to provide space where parents can assist opposite sex children is acknowledged.  The suggested recourse is family locker rooms.  

 

While people may disagree about when a child is too old to enter the opposite sex's locker room, the facility must select and enforce an age limit.  To do otherwise is to risk a lawsuit.

 

Parents who feel the selected age is too young are free to petition the facility to raise the limit.  Those who feel the limits should be lower are free to do the same.  Ultimately it will come down to which limit is in the best interest of the facility's bottom line.

[8circles]

Oh for the love of Zeus.

 

Here we go again with "back in the good old days...".

 

And puberty has been mentioned from the very beginning of this thread, not brought up by Sadie.

 

Goodness, we had someone say she'd be shrieking at the little boys in the women's locker room. If I weren't on my phone i'd look it up. I am all for body autonomy for all people. I'm also for parents being reasonable and guiding their children in appropriate responses in these situations. I understand that girls at certain ages feel uncomfortable being seen dressing by other people, especially boys at certain ages. I also understand that many women have experienced abuse and don't feel comfortable being seen by people while getting dressed. But being seen in various states of undress by young boys being brought in by their mothers is not actually harming you. Afaik, there isn't an epidemic of boys going into women's dressing rooms to stare at people getting dressed.

 

I think this thread has now officially jumped the shark.

[SKL]

Oh for the love of Zeus.

 

Here we go again with "back in the good old days...".

 

And puberty has been mentioned from the very beginning of this thread, not brought up by Sadie.

 

Goodness, we had someone say she'd be shrieking at the little boys in the women's locker room. If I weren't on my phone i'd look it up. I am all for body autonomy for all people. I'm also for parents being reasonable and guiding their children in appropriate responses in these situations. I understand that girls at certain ages feel uncomfortable being seen dressing by other people, especially boys at certain ages. I also understand that many women have experienced abuse and don't feel comfortable being seen by people while getting dressed. But being seen in various states of undress by young boys being brought in by their mothers is not actually harming you. Afaik, there isn't an epidemic of boys going into women's dressing rooms to stare at people getting dressed.

 

I think this thread has now officially jumped the shark.

 

I don't think "actual harm" (whatever that is) is the threshold in a case like this.  I might as well go get naked in the men's locker room since it is not going to "actually harm" them.

 

There isn't an epidemic, but there is a trend toward people being afraid to let their school-aged children go anywhere without a parent, so I do see this increasing rather than decreasing.  We are not suggesting anyone have a giant fit, just saying it's inappropriate and people should use the other, more socially appropriate options that are available.

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by SKL