To be shocked by a transwoman guest on Jeremy Vine today asking a female caller what sex she is - and whether she’s “been tested?”

Thing is, there is no counterfactual alternate universe SC ruling that would not have resulted in males-of-special-identity barging into women's spaces and declaring their absolute right to be there, plus threats of violence, plus screeds of obfuscation about how complicated sex is.

If the SC had ruled the other way, the exact same things would have happened. From the Righteous POV, the only difference would be the triumphant tone in the shouting.

I think that if a venue is going to declare a space as being 'for women' it will be expected to exclude transwomen, or lay itself open to accusations of misrepresenting the space. Because the one thing the judgement is crystal clear about is that the word women does not include transwomen.

God just why ARE women having a reaction to the increase of males of various identities colonising their facilities and services. It's a total mystery.

The pertinent part is that if venues wish to still provide facilities segregated in this way, it is now properly understood which one we all should use.

No I believe this is a totally erroneous reading. You can still have women and men’s toilets and you don’t need to exclude trans women from the womens. Same with sports. That is what Lord Sumption is saying. there is no obligation to re-label toilets as a result of this law. Simply it is that if a service does want to exclude trans women for specific proportionate reasons (eg women’s refuges) they can lawfully do so, as has always been the case.

I think anyone who has read the judgment knows this already. There is no obligation to provide single sex spaces, yet most venues do nonetheless. Almost everywhere has two facilities, women's and men's. The pertinent part is that if venues wish to still provide facilities segregated in this way, it is now properly understood which one we all should use. I suppose there's nothing to stop venues labelling their toilets 'women and transwomen' and 'men and transmen'. But I think that's highly unlikely to happen in any significant numbers, and may well alienate women customers, who outnumber transwomen customers, so not good for business.

He’s right at the bottom, but I’ve seen legal interpretation that says the quote at the top isn’t correct. What the law says is that single sex means exactly that. Nowhere is blogged to provide single sex spaces, but if they do then they are obliged to be clear they aren’t for trans women. Nothing in the law stops a pub, for eg, classifying all its toilets mixed sex (though 8n think there are rules about what they must look like) however if the6 have a ladies and a gents then they are obliged to ensure that the single sex space is single sex.
Not sure which if the threads I saw it on, but that’s a legal opinion, not mine.

And yet, if the provision states it is female, it is to be single sex. If organisations don’t wish to provide single sex provisions, unless another statute of law specifies this, then no they don’t have to. But how many place ‘don’t have to?’ I would suggest not as many as some people hope.

Bridges fully believes that Bridges is female and looks like a female person. Egged on by Bridges mother who used to post regularly on MN.

Also please note everyone

It was when Stonewall started to falsely advise their interpretation of the EA. It is short sighted to not think there might be a significant correlation in the timing.

Depends on how you look at this.

Male people can be legitimately excluded from female single sex spaces. Meaning that for that instance, female people’s rights trump male people’s rights. Otherwise, the SC judgement would look different.

Male people do have the right to safety, privacy and dignity from the opposite sex. Just as female people do. That is the equality of the law. What no male person has in the UK at the moment is the right to demand that a designate female single sex space is open to them based on their philosophical belief about themselves.

“I am asking why are people so hyper aware and hyper vigilant of who is in the bathroom in general (unless of course they give you cause for concern with their behaviour)”

No one needs to justify to you why they are hyper aware. Do you want all of us to detail our traumas just to make you feel it is acceptable for us to be hyper aware? That is what your posts is coming across as.

Women are hyper vigilant for any number of reasons. The point is, women and girls need to not be shamed by asking polite questions. No one should be abused, but no one should be overstating abuse as polite question.

It you want to fucking shame people about why they are hyper aware and hyper vigilant, go and blame Stonewall and other organisations.

Just a nitpicking point. It is not women who put the ‘heat’ into the discussion. Anyone who considers joining Starmer in using this phrase, is framing women to be the problem through ‘equal behaviour’. This is not the case at all.

Just a nitpicking point. It is not women who put the ‘heat’ into the discussion. Anyone who considers joining Starmer in using this phrase, is framing women to be the problem through ‘equal behaviour’. This is not the case at all.

I absolutely fucking HATE this argument.

For millenia, we've been able to tell who 99.9% of the population were male and who were female using our eyes and ears. The only things that have changed is trends, like what we wear and how we "identify".

An androgynous person needs only open their mouth to make it obvious in most cases, and on the phone, it really doesn't matter does it? In person, if you genuinely pass as the opposite sex, then have at it and use the facilities you want. No one will give a shit. Reality is that most males look male, and most females even with a beard, objectively look female, or at least unthreatening.

Facilities that require proofs will take proofs.

PS did anyone see Emily somebody on ITV news being interviewed about this? "She" said walking down the street she's viewed as female so will use female facilities. The absolute audacity of ITV News to interview a trans woman, who looks and sounds male, and has literally taken medals from women, to be the only one interviewed, giving the opinion that JK Rowling has loads of political clout and has paid for this to happen made me rage earlier.

Why did they suddenly need to question? Because that’s when TRAs started the TWAW nonsense and insisted they had every right to be in single sex spaces. Why are you so keen to defend men at the expense of women?

As the PP said she’s only been questioned since the mid 20-teens.

That’s the fault of the TRAs the people who did the questioning .

They're pissed off about the ruling and acting like petulant children.

What’s going on is that men are doing whatever the fuck they want and some people are enabling it. As the PP said she’s only been questioned since the mid 20-teens. That’s the fault of TRAs.
What’s your solution to preserving the legal right of women (and yes, we do know what we mean by that and yes, in the majority of cases it’s obvious) to single sex spaces if it’s not politely asking men to leave?
FWIW I’ve never needed to do it, but other women on here have. And some of them have been SAed or worse by the men concerned. So what would you do?

Edit: also not my rights. The rights of all women and girls, including ones much more vulnerable than I am. Or than the men transgressing their boundaries are.

“Respectful questions”? If such questions are respectful , remind me what this thread is about…?
And these “respectful questions” are to be triggered by what - If someone doesn’t look quite right to you? And ‘some poor women will be upset’ by this , but that’s apparently just how it is to be because of your ‘rights’? Are you actually serious? Pleeeeaaaase.

For the love of god what is going on in this country.

It's a shame that a small but delusional group of people didn't think they are entitled to shove in where they don't belong. Frankly, I'm past the point of caring about how they might feel, when our feelings are shrugged off as an inconvenience. Ho-hum. 'Be kind' (code for 'sit down and shut up'). Now when that's stopped working, it's, 'Well, you know, you could be assaulted anywhere.' Such an effective argument!

They've brought up a whole host of problems for women who rightfully don't want males in single-sex spaces, yet we're the ones to blame for not just taking it.

I'm raging for the actual women who will be made to feel like shit because someone supposedly can't tell whether or not they're female, and I'll judge any women who use this as an excuse to bully. I think you need to be very sure before you raise the issue—which to be fair, is usually fairly easy, since most men can't pass as women. Personally, I'd be hesitant to confront a man on my own even if I were positive he were male in a female-only space, because some of these people are absolutely nuts and prone to violence. (Especially the ones that haven't even made a real effort and are clearly male.)

Just getting back into this discussion after flitting and out.

A woman declaring they feeling threatened is problematic. Firstly you are requiring a female people to declare their stress maybe have to declare a trauma response. This might be ok for you, but it shouldn’t be needed.

Plus, the very male people who are there to transgress boundaries want this response. That is part of why they transgress boundaries.

I think the reason why their arguments are overly complicated is because at the crux of it it makes no sense.

Gender theory is full of contradictions and circular reasoning. That’s why they tie themselves up in knots trying to answer basic questions and pretend it’s oh so complicated and we are just too stupid to understand. It’s not complicated at all, it’s just illogical.

It I.lustrates nothing except the weird insistence that nobody knows shat anyone’s sex is. For the vast majority, we absolutely do. For the others, respectful questions seem in order. And yes, I know a few women will feel upset by this. I feel for them. I really do. But since we can’t trust men not to come into our spaces we do have a right to check. Hopefully when this settles and men stay in their own spaces people will feel less inclined to check.

People don’t tend to have chromosome tests unless there’s some ambiguity in what can be observed at birth or a disorder makes itself felt later (usually at puberty). It was TRAs who kept banging on about chromosomes.
As for rights not trumping each other, that’s exactly why trans women (and other men) shouldn’t enter women’s spaces. As soon as that happens women’s right to single sex spaces is trashed. Glad we agree.