Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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?”

794 replies

AlertMaker · 23/04/2025 10:04

I genuinely couldn’t believe what I was hearing. A woman called in to make a point and instead of responding to her argument, the guest asked her what sex she was - and even questioned whether she’d been tested to confirm it.

I found it incredibly demeaning and unsettling. AIBU to think this kind of behaviour undermines the whole idea of respectful discussion and actually silences women?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
aylis · 26/04/2025 09:46

That insane decent into emojis and CAPITAL LETTERS is cracking me up 🤣

BundleBoogie · 26/04/2025 09:39

Helleofabore · 26/04/2025 07:28

It was indeed ! On so many levels.

As they say, in an abusive situation the most dangerous time is when you leave a ‘relationship’.

This was a very one sided relationship - more of a stalking (of women by men claiming to be us) I guess, but the incoherent rage appears to be free flowing now.

Helleofabore · 26/04/2025 07:28

Kucinghitam · 26/04/2025 07:13

<Chef's kiss>

It was indeed ! On so many levels.

Kucinghitam · 26/04/2025 07:13

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:40

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

Edited

<Chef's kiss>

miraxxx · 26/04/2025 04:21

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:57

common sense has gone out of the window here.

we can certainly agree on that. What I wrote is literally the consequence of what you all are insisting is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It’s utterly absurd .

I am certainly the last person in this conversation responsible for this absurdity.

Yeah right. Those who lose arguments always resort to moral grandstanding.

maybeuptight · 26/04/2025 01:53

I've certainly undergone tests that confirm conditions that can only occur in a female.

Positive pregnancy tests, smear tests, cervical biopsy, external and internal ultrasound to examine ovaries...

FlakyCritic · 26/04/2025 01:42

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 20:42

  • *trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
  • in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities*

this would actually be laughable if it wasn’t so disgraceful .

That you believe women and girls having our hard won single sex spaces for safety, privacy and dignity is 'disgraceful' is sad. It's your posts that are disgraceful.
Women are human and have human rights. Deal with it!

BundleBoogie · 25/04/2025 23:23

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:57

common sense has gone out of the window here.

we can certainly agree on that. What I wrote is literally the consequence of what you all are insisting is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It’s utterly absurd .

I am certainly the last person in this conversation responsible for this absurdity.

So now you’re worried about the safety of children?

The guidance talks about MEN. It doesn’t use the word ‘males’. That is your word that you used to introduce the absurdity.

I can pretty much 100% promise you that no premises will get sued for allowing male babies into the ladies toilets. So you can stop worrying about going into the men’s and finding hordes of babies crawling around trying to work out what to do.

As you know the ruling and the guidance is about keeping men (regardless of identity) out of women’s spaces. It’s been issued nice and quickly because inexplicably the trans activists are running around screaming that they don’t understand the judgement. Even though it’s really really clear. Have you read it yet?

queenofthesuburbs · 25/04/2025 23:14

@Lostcat What would be the point of the judgment if, having determined that a woman is someone who was born female, a man is allowed to access women's facilities?
Also what is your stance on men competing in women's sports?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/04/2025 23:04

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:57

common sense has gone out of the window here.

we can certainly agree on that. What I wrote is literally the consequence of what you all are insisting is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It’s utterly absurd .

I am certainly the last person in this conversation responsible for this absurdity.

That's the sound of the point whooshing over your head.

Nameychangington · 25/04/2025 23:02

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:57

common sense has gone out of the window here.

we can certainly agree on that. What I wrote is literally the consequence of what you all are insisting is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It’s utterly absurd .

I am certainly the last person in this conversation responsible for this absurdity.

Sigh.

It doesn't really matter what we insist is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It doesn't really matter what you insist is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It matters what the EHRC insist is the correct interpretation of the SC And they are saying, no transwomen in women's single sex spaces.

queenofthesuburbs · 25/04/2025 23:01

@MissScarletInTheBallroom You beat me to it! Yes years ago, women always allowed pre pubescent boys into women's loos and likewise turned a blind eye to those men in a dress who clearly yearned to be women. We made no comment and were "kind" because we knew they desperately wanted to be a woman.
However it has now gone too far. I would not want to be a 14 year old girl in the women's toilets with a bearded man. Men should absolutely NOT compete in women's sports...that was an absolute disgrace. So by going "too far", they have shot themselves in the foot. The trans lobby only has itself to blame I'm afraid

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:57

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/04/2025 22:53

You know, your post is a perfect example of how common sense has gone out of the window here.

In the past, we had women's toilets, which were for women, but by common consent we turned a blind eye to the presence of little boys with their mothers and the occasional transsexual who made a real effort to pass and behaved discreetly and respectfully. There might have been the odd niggle over a transsexual who was too obviously a man or a boy who was too old to be with his mother in the ladies, but in general there was a rule and there were the unspoken exceptions to the rule.

Now, because of the TQ+ lobby and their ridiculous demands that bearded trans woman Alex must be able to use the ladies' toilets, and people like you frothing what about this and what about that completely unlikely scenario, we are in a situation where the Supreme Court and the EHRC have had to go, "Listen, knobheads, the rule is no penises in the women's toilets, and since you're apparently all too stupid to manage the exceptions to the rule like civilised adults, there are no exceptions to the rule, got it?"

common sense has gone out of the window here.

we can certainly agree on that. What I wrote is literally the consequence of what you all are insisting is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It’s utterly absurd .

I am certainly the last person in this conversation responsible for this absurdity.

Nameychangington · 25/04/2025 22:57

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:40

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

Edited

Okay before you just looked stubbornly wrong, now you look petulantly silly. And definitely not what anyone would look to for a 'rational interpretation of the law'.

You seem very shocked at what the EHRC guidance says, yet it was completely predictable that it'd say what it does from what the judgement said. You've been strongly arguing on MN for over a week that the law says something different than it does, and that the judgement says something different than it does, and telling others that they were wrong about what it says.

But from your reaction to the guidance, I genuinely think you've never actually read the judgement.

Maybe you should.

borntobequiet · 25/04/2025 22:57

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:40

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

Edited

Oh dear.

BundleBoogie · 25/04/2025 22:56

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:40

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

Edited

I said men. Babies are not men.

Do you know what a man is?

The general policy for single sex facilities is the children under 8 are allowed in regardless of their sex. I’m sure that will remain so you can stop panicking about the babies.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 25/04/2025 22:53

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:40

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

Edited

You know, your post is a perfect example of how common sense has gone out of the window here.

In the past, we had women's toilets, which were for women, but by common consent we turned a blind eye to the presence of little boys with their mothers and the occasional transsexual who made a real effort to pass and behaved discreetly and respectfully. There might have been the odd niggle over a transsexual who was too obviously a man or a boy who was too old to be with his mother in the ladies, but in general there was a rule and there were the unspoken exceptions to the rule.

Now, because of the TQ+ lobby and their ridiculous demands that bearded trans woman Alex must be able to use the ladies' toilets, and people like you frothing what about this and what about that completely unlikely scenario, we are in a situation where the Supreme Court and the EHRC have had to go, "Listen, knobheads, the rule is no penises in the women's toilets, and since you're apparently all too stupid to manage the exceptions to the rule like civilised adults, there are no exceptions to the rule, got it?"

Helleofabore · 25/04/2025 22:44

”So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right?”

What another desperate distraction? How unexpected.

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 22:40

BundleBoogie · 25/04/2025 22:07

Where the need for a single sex space has been established it is ALWAYS proportionate to exclude all men, regardless of self declared identity. Maybe read the new EHRC guidance to get you up to speed?

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

BundleBoogie · 25/04/2025 22:07

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 07:12

If they do offer men's and women's, then they must be single sex. For biological women and biological men.

No. This is not the case. They can exclude trans women from women’s spaces if there is proportionate and reasonable justification. They are not required to do so. It is not illegal for trans women to use women’s toilets.

Edited

Where the need for a single sex space has been established it is ALWAYS proportionate to exclude all men, regardless of self declared identity. Maybe read the new EHRC guidance to get you up to speed?

Helleofabore · 25/04/2025 21:59

“You are very naive if you think this argument is over.”

I don’t think it is over. I think it will never again recover though.

I think that history will remember this era as a time when society was told to believe a fallacy that ‘TWAW’ and that it was because of feelings around identity and nothing else. Despite attempts to say that it was. Many people believed that there was a special group of people but then little by little what we were being told was shown to be false.

Of course, some people have gender dysphoria. It doesn’t make them the opposite sex and the trust and confidence that people had in the groups telling them that these people had to be affirmed and receive extreme body modifications as treatment has slipped dramatically.

And when you have Sporting federations who make rulings that make people are not female people based on scientific evidence, and you have departments in UK governments that say that for some purposes male people are not female people. Including for prisons and rape crisis.

And you have courts who agree that demanded pronouns can be ignored in court, and a court declaring that for purposes under the EA transwomen are men.

All this messaging has broken the hold of the mantras around TWAW. It was never true and yet the coercion at societal level to force belief was extraordinary. And those who tried to force it look like the bullies now after the emotional manipulation to make those who disagreed look like bullies.

Is the argument over? No. But it will never recover. Who is going to trust the people repeating this mantra now?

Alucard55 · 25/04/2025 21:53

Nameychangington · 25/04/2025 21:39

Well quite.

And if you did ask, any man who wanted to could just lie about what his thoughts are.

And if that man happened to be a man who wanted to harm women, and all he had to do was say he had certain thoughts, in order to get access to women when they are vulnerable, undressed, or out of public view, he probably would tell that lie, wouldn't he? I mean, why would he not?

That is really quite shocking. It's good that we live in a society where men respect womens concerns and keep out of their private spaces.

queenofthesuburbs · 25/04/2025 21:46

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 20:54

You are very naive if you think this argument is over.

It never will be on your terms because trans people aren’t just going to disappear.

And now we have the body responsible for promoting equality and human rights interpreting equalities / anti discrimination law as saying that trans women must be excluded from women’s spaces and it’s also perfectly lawful to exclude them from the men’s but it’s all ok because they can go in the “other” space, for “other” (weird) people that aren’t lawfully allowed to be around anyone because their weirdness makes the normies too uncomfortable .

It’s actually sick. Sick.

Edited

But why should their being uncomfortable in a third designated space trump women's discomfort having men in their loos?

Nameychangington · 25/04/2025 21:39

Alucard55 · 25/04/2025 21:29

Thank you. I'm sorry if this sounds stupid but how do you tell what thoughts a biological man has in his head? I presume we're not going around asking biological men what thoughts they have in their heads?

Well quite.

And if you did ask, any man who wanted to could just lie about what his thoughts are.

And if that man happened to be a man who wanted to harm women, and all he had to do was say he had certain thoughts, in order to get access to women when they are vulnerable, undressed, or out of public view, he probably would tell that lie, wouldn't he? I mean, why would he not?

borntobequiet · 25/04/2025 21:35

Lostcat · 25/04/2025 20:42

  • *trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
  • in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities*

this would actually be laughable if it wasn’t so disgraceful .

It’s not disgraceful. Why is it laughable?