So now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Woman means biological female,

It is going to be a long road to move the police back to a place where you could appeal to them to remove a transitioning man from women’s spaces.

While I agree wholeheartedly with you in principle, I think complaining to management is more likely to be successful in the first instance. I’m fairly sure the reason so many let men into the women’s in the first place was because they knew the men would kick off and they were unsure where they stood. They can no longer have any doubt that those men don’t have a right to enter that space.

If you complain to management and they back you up and then he still forces his way in, then the police might be a useful option.

If there was clear signage on toilets and changing rooms, I’d assume any man in there was a voyeur - so maybe the police would be a better option? It really peed me off to hear some TW saying they’re going to continue using women’s single sex spaces. They know it must be intimidating and unwanted, yet they persist in doing it, probably knowing that their size and strength will work in their favour.

I’d like legislation to prevent this personally and a few court cases and fines to dissuade other men who take pleasure in telling us how they’re going to trample over our boundaries.

If you are feeling brave you could say “wrong room you need the men’s”

Realistically you report it to the manager and let them deal with it. Just make it clear if it says Women it’s for biological females only.

From memory there is a case being taken against David Lloyd for making women’s communal changing rooms mixed sex. I expect cases like this will wake up a lot of organisations.

As pp on many threads have said HR and DEI leads will be rapidly assessing what they need to do to be compliant. If I was them I might also think about suing Stonewall if they reviewed the policies or gave advice

I have confidence in Mumsnet revising their terms - and threads like this will help! Just a question of how quickly they do it....

I am also clear that one of the reasons we are able to proudly be Terf Island is Mumsnet.... I was one of the initial 100 Man Friday group and we met online here... Far more importantly, the three For Women Scotland sheroes met via Mumsnet..... Th is is one of the reasons we are in a better place than other countries

There are men who’ve had the moral courage to take a different line - and been hounded as ‘truscum’, or in the astonishing case brought against Miranda Yardley, be accused of transphobia! He, and some others of his ilk, did try to campaign for third spaces, but they probably don’t have an appropriate platform where they can do so.

“A person has to be tough to be transgender. Given the problems that can be associated with coming out to family, friends and work colleagues, the constant vilification of trans people by certain parts of the media and on social media and the internal emotional turmoil transition entails, it requires mental strength beyond the ordinary. I should know – I have walked that path”

I know someone else already highlighted this section, or part of it, but having now opened the article, what strikes me is that RMW’s life would be made much easier, and so much of the mental strength mentioned would be unnecessary, were RMW and others able to accept reality and determined to carve out a separate pathway for themselves and those like them.

The insistence on pushing their way into women’s spaces when they know they don’t belong there must create a constant state of cognitive dissonance, which they convert to self-righteous anger against the women they see as their enemies for not validating them.

It takes great mental strength to continue justifying yourself in the face of an implacable truth. It would take more moral courage than any of these men appear to have to start to fight for true justice, based upon who they really are.

We discuss other lawyers on this board who are fighting either for or against women’s rights, so RMW’s sex is not always relevant to the discussion. I think that’s where the distinction has lain, up until now.

I also think the correctly sexing situation will probably require a separate court case to assess whether routine use of correct sex pronouns amounts to harassment if the person doesn’t want you to use them.

Ah poor Robin, the highest Court in the land is wrong, eh?

Maybe I’m wrong in my interpretation or understanding. Perhaps correct sexing and use of pronouns are not linked as I had assumed.

It’s already apparent in this thread that the rules are still not comprehensively known and fully understood, even by those of us who use this board regularly.

I absolutely agree with @ErrolTheDragon that even though the rules have felt unfair sometimes, we have been very well served in that we have been able to continue posting and rallying women despite the difficult position Mumsnet found herself to be in. Without this wonderful board, I don’t think we would have reached this point.

What would be unreasonable about evicting a person who had no right to be there?

I'd have like to have seen that.

Was Robin saying that the Supreme Court had got it wrong.

Robin was so sure he was right.

Have they? I thought there was a time when correctly sexing any person who didn’t want you to was banned on this board, under the special FWR rules.

However…we’ve strayed a bit from the OPs question. I wonder if it would be a good idea for people to remind themselves of exactly what the MN talk guidelines say, and then perhaps can discuss which, if any, might now be revised.

My take is that although we’ve cavilled at restrictions, on the whole they’ve served us pretty well over these troubled years. The one specific I’d personally like to see changed is around the use of the term trans-identified male/female. It seems the most accurate and unambiguous descriptor.

Depends what situations we’re thinking about.
loos may still be open to misuse.
changing rooms - should be possible to deal with overt cases (the ‘Willy wavers’).

but really the more serious situations should be able to be correctly dealt with.
Prisons - they know without doubt what sex a criminal is.
Hospitals - they obviously need to sort out records to be correct (sex rather than the ludicrous ‘gender’ marker) but again, in reality they should know what sex each patient is in order to treat them properly.
Workplaces - again, employers should have accurate information about each employees sex, and ‘gender reassignment’ status if relevant.

One hopes that this judgement will very quickly put an end to lady penises being proudly waved about in women's spaces, at the very least. RMW and his ilk may be braying about how they will carry on as before, and perhaps they will, but I think they will find women's changing rooms a lot less fun than before now they can't troll women in the process.

So how could it work in practice if you saw someone who you suspect is biologically male use a single sex space for female? What would happen if you complained to whoever runs the establishment?

To be honest I don't see much changing. I don't think the organisation who runs the establishment could reasonably be expected to evict an individual because another individual says they are the wrong sex. Am I missing something?

There’s 2 distinct aspects to the legal enforcement that is likely to be required. One is against the individuals deliberately using inappropriate single sex facilities where they exist, but the other - probably more important one - is against organisations which persist in inappropriate provision of facilities, the ones who claim to have have ‘women’s’ services that allow males in.

A person has to be tough to be transgender. … it requires mental strength beyond the ordinary. I should know – I have walked that path.

The vanity. He really does think he is so special. And the obfuscation in that opinion piece. There is nothing ‘confused’ about the Supreme Court judgement. We simply go back to accepting that ‘woman’ is not a costume or live-action role play. It just means adult human female.

Yes, enforcement of our rights is important. It didn’t matter in the past, when society was a bit more civil, and men didn’t think they had the right to use women’s facilities.

Maybe we need a specific law passed, with penalties ranging upwards from a fine for a first offence. Getting a criminal record might make men think twice.

I don’t know who said this but “Good men stay out so bad men stand out”.

RMW in the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/17/supreme-court-tough-day-trans-people-labour

TW have spent a long time with people not pointing out the obvious, going forward many will be surprised that they don’t pass when they try to use female single sex spaces.

I’m not sure that sort of thing is applicable unless there’s a monetary loss?
I doubt the no win, no fee types would want to get into the world of employment tribunals, constructive dismissal cases etc.

I wonder if one of the outcomes of this case is loads of historical claims like PFI - did your employer have a DEI policy allowing men to use the ladies loo, no-win-no-fee etc.

re PP point of trans women not being represented in the case, surely SG could have chosen RMW as their barrister but they (wisely) chose not to?

I hope so. I too heard someone on the radio who said they, a TW, would continue to use Women’s Changing Rooms. I think that the considerate TW who’ve never used female spaces will continue to be considerate, but the bolshy ones who’ve used female spaces will continue to do so. Yes, we can complain, but what I’d like to see is more robust protection for women to ensure no men go in our toilets and changing rooms. So, clear and firm signage, and the implication of legal action against male people who purposely breach our boundaries.

The talk guidelines have always allowed us to correctly sex people, albeit with limits on how we do so. Whether policing re bloody pronouns will remain I don’t know - I think MNHQ’s position is about ‘civil debate’ rather than a legalistic one.

Let’s face it, sex is always relevant to the discussion. We wouldn’t be discussing the likes of RMW under any other circumstances. He just isn’t interesting or relevant to the vast majority of my life for any other reason. <not intended nastily>.