Am I alone in NOT wanting a great flourishing of third spaces but to prefer that the definition of what being a man is widens...

That is a worry, but I think the number of transgender people will be greatly reduced now that they are not being hijacked by mens rights activists and fetishists. The transgender population is estimated to be less than 0.01% of the population. It was inflated by men in babydoll nighties flouncing around in the ladies. they aren't going to be bothered about going to the disabled loos, as they cant perform their exhibitionism or get off on being in the ladies or on intimidating women into challenging them. If a transwoman with long hair who just wants to dress as a normal woman and not in fetish gear walks into the mens and walks back out again, they will not be bothered by men in there. Transmen who pass as men will probably again just be able to go to the men's without being bothered.

I agree. I do understand that long-term transexuals who for example, have not used men's facilties for years even decades would find now being expected to use them humiliating and distressing. But, as we're all now clear, that does not mean that they can use the women's.

The only viable solution is third unisex spaces, to prevent accessible toilets being used by people who don't need them. Obviously, this won't happen overnight but there does need to be thought put into making public life accessible for everyone.

In theory it could affect trans-identifying men too, but there has been no talk of this only of it affecting women. As you said that is typical. I also agree that part of the ruling is wrong and IMO it undermines the clear stance on sex meaning biological sex.

Maya Forstater said the following on twitter:
I have seen quite a lot of this question going around.
Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.

It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men"

The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways.

They don't have to, but they can.
The situation in a women's prison is different from a toilets in the shopping centre.
A woman who identifies as a man should be in a women's prison and risk assessed as female.
In a public place she probably doesn't want to go into the ladies and it would be lawful to say no.

There are often unisex options. Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies (and vice versa).
That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don't be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies.

My worry isn't the flourishing of third spaces as much as the worry that having finally been rebuffed from trampling on women's rights, trans women are instead going to use disabled loos and trample all over the rights of disabled people instead.

Those disabled toilets exist because we need them and often cannot wait and cannot access an alternative

Well I think it's wrong. Biological sex means biological sex. You can't exclude a female bodied person from a female loo on grounds of masculine appearance. If this is what the court said, they are wrong.

PS I can't see the tweet as I don't use Twitter anymore so I don't know what Maya said.

Also - isn't it just typical that it only affects female bodied people. Nothing to say that feminine men (not trans-identifying men) can't use the men's. Why does that not surprise me.

I personally can't see any reason for that paragraph of the ruling. It would be just as effective, if not more so, without it. Because all it does is lend credence to the idea that appearance is what matters and not biological sex. Yes it may feel unusual and uncomfortable at first to see people who look like men using women's facilities, but we need to accept women no matter their appearance or identity. Female single sex space is for females and male single sex space is for male, no exceptions in my opinion.

This is the most problematic bit of the ruling to me too. But it’s still subject to a proportionate-means-to-legitimate-end test if I understand it correctly, which is the standard logic for discriminating on a protected characteristic.

And overall, I’d rather have an SC ruling that creates difficulties in unusual edge cases than one that maintains difficulties all over the place.

I’m not convinced that this problem has been created mainly by men excluding transwomen from male spaces.

There’s certainly a lot of male aggression in the story, but mainly from TRAs/AGPs seeking dominance or validation. Enforced and enabled by lots of female conformity-enforcing, shunning and institutional cover.

The average man, in my experience, is pretty relaxed about transwomen in male spaces. Not much thought is given to it, and they are men after all.

That’s not to downplay that there may be real risks to transwomen in male spaces. But I don’t think that is what has driven this issue.

They would be breaking the law though so perhaps they are decent enough men not to do so.

Maya Forstater has been pretty clear that it applies to far more than rape crisis centres.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1913185941977510055

That was an example, but it still yet to be seen how far it will be taken. Recent guidance put out by the EHRC refers to men's and women's facilities generally, not specifically rape crisis centres.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

And, crucially, in that example they would be offered a service that still meets their needs but doesn’t exclude others.

Everyone’s needs are being met.

My feminism lets me think that it is fine to be a masculine female or or one who presents as a man. 'Woman' really is a broad band. It just doesn't include males.

Females changing in a women's space wearing manly clothing /a beard etc. do not present the sort of problems that would trouble many. Appearances differ.

That probably isn't the difficulty we are being faced with though. :)

On the other side of things, I don't have the experience to be sure.

I feel that men should be flexible about manliness but this is not my challenge. How trans-women should be welcomed amongst other males is really something for all males to decide. Perhaps a third space is required. Perhaps it is not.

I am hoping things go back to how things were before gender ideology took hold and things were sane and workable.

Men who really do have severe gender dysphoria (and they do exist) transition well enough to pass as female will still use the women's loos - nearly everyone was fine with this. And the piss taking men, whatever their identity or none, go back to using the men's.

This worked well and so all the doom and gloom and catastrophising from TRA is just nonsense.

I don't see how you can exclude transmen from female loos on the basis of their appearance. If that was the case you could exclude women identifying as female just because they looked masculine, as well. That can't be right.

I get the rape crisis centre example but that is very specific and probably very rare.

it reminds me that being homosexual used to be in the DSM classes as a mental illness and that parallel makes me uncomfortable.

The TRAs are still inside your head, force-teaming the LGB with the T. They've told us all about that parallel to stop us from thinking too hard, it's called a "thought-terminating cliche".

The huge critical difference between being gay and being trans is that no one's rights are infringed upon by the gay person's demands for more rights. Legalising same-sex marriage didn't stop opposite-sex marriages, nor did it force ministers of religion to conduct same-sex weddings because any same-sex couple can marry at the Register Office. As the Supreme Court has recently confirmed, there is a conflict between the trans demand to use opposite-sex single-sex spaces and women's rights to single-sex spaces.

It makes no sense to pathologise harmless behaviours, such as being gay, because there's no need to treat the those behaviours to protect the person displaying the behaviour and others around them. By contrast, taking cross-sex hormones and demanding entry into spaces that are for the opposite sex only is something that the person and others absolutely need protecting from.

It's a corollary of Rules 1, 2, 3, and 11 that probably could be a Rule 18 of its own: "women are responsible for fixing men's problems even though men caused those problems in the first place".

It's not quite Rule 1: men's proclivity to beat up other men isn't being blamed on women per se but we are being made responsible for preventing it.

Our refusal to go along with this is unacceptable and punishable under Rules 2 and 3, and the harm done to us in letting men into women's spaces is minimised under Rule 11.

Ok so we have had a week flying our broomsticks around the Salem fire and dancing with our pitchforks. What is next for us old skool feminist hags?

As I suspect, this is going to grumble on as all the messages of support to the transcommunity continue (deafening crickets about women getting their spaces back but ho hum)

As much as I love a good roll in the mama bearpit as MN forums have been a blast, I am aware that the more delicately souled and the fence-sitters will still worry that be kind has not worked. Our forthrightness may be off-putting and I wouldn’t mind winning a few over.

I recall my peaking being a slow drip drip drip. I think many allies of the transcommunity may have had their loyal adherence to the cause eroded. There is something to be said about tempering our public interactions with the fence sitters and former stalwart allies to get them to consider the unthinkable heretical thoughts about the validity of sex classes.

Since I move in relatively woke circles. I have been told that most lesbians do support their trans sisters (news to me) but they do know my views. Nevertheless, I think there is mileage in trying to find some common ground.

I am thinking of framing my discussions on these contentions around the difference of liberal feminism compared to old school second wave feminism and gently drawing them into the world of material reality.

I would want to broaden out the discussion into one of life experience. As middle-aged women, we are ignored our opinions are dismissed and yet like canaries in the coal mine we have still spoken out. Some of us in light of the ruling are glad a proper debate can be had. The win is for transparency, light debate and proper honest conversation not making questioning someone’s position or belief a taboo. It is a starting point.

A lot of the younger generation know their fellow trans friends as the waif like non masc guys and the girls whose self-image and loathing is so fragile that they would self combust on the tiny mistake of a mixed pronoun. Of course, it is easier to endorse them and chime along with the outrage. To step outside the group-think is social death.

I can even understand that within a university setting these young ones have decided their world will be a true utopian ideal and that if the legislation had allowed for transpeople in all spaces we would all be in the sunny uplands of rainbowville. In their fervour they assumed once we met lots of trans peeps we would all join hands (never considering that actually us boring olds have plenty of experience of transfolk).

Sadly, they have been misled. Not everyone is as optimistic as them of their new progressive utopia. Much of another person’s outlook on life has been affected by life experience. Outwith of wealthy media land, luvvy think and the ivory towers, women and men have had to contend with the grubby the truly ugly and meaness of an ordinary life.

An ordinary life that allows with their naive outlook in utopia land for a rape victim to be forced to call say “her penis” in court. An ordinary life where women who really are the most deprived and vulnerable have to share a cell with Isla Bryson.

An ordinary life where a victim of domestic abuse has a panic attack in a shelter because a man walks into it. That ordinary woman cannot stop her body shaking, her mind tripping from fight or flight, and does not need to be further re traumatised by telling her to “reframe her trauma”.

An ordinary teenage girl who in the changing rooms of a local swimming pool has an older person in a wig leering and showing his “euphoria” while she tries to tell herself not to run out, even though it is her strongest instinct, because she doesn’t want to be seen as phobic.

But I think I would start with misogyny, How has their approach solved the intractable issues of men subjecting women to physical and sexual abuse since the new utopia? How is calling men women and women men helping on that? All I can see with my eyes is a blurring that has allowed boundaries to be crossed and it is for ordinary women that I am old school.

Fix misogyny first, stop assuming you have already done so, then we can discuss your progressive values seriously. I am more than willing to help with that mission.

Absolutely yes to being welcoming.

I would love there to be as few private cubicles as possible. This means if we had ‘third spaces’ that they should not be completely private too. It would afford the occupants the same safety protections as single sex toilets.

I have been studying this for ages. When you get mixed sex spaces they are private. You have a private space in a public area open to both sexes. What you think might happen, happens.

It seems counterintuitive that privacy is bad but when you have collated a lot of individual cases you see a pattern. For instance a 6 year old being led into a toilet by a man on a train. A 12 year old girl at a station. A boy in shopping centre. A girl in a nightclub being followed into the toilets by a man who spiked her. All mixed sex private toilets in very public places and no one stopped it because they didn’t know. I believe it would stop a lot of VAWG if there were less opportunities.

I bloody hate detailing these incidents because I care about not identifying people but these are all newspaper stories and so the tip of the iceberg.

The example given by the Supreme Court was a very masculine-looking trans-identified woman in a rape crisis centre. She might be offered individual support, rather than being supported in a group and possibly triggering raped and abused women who read her as a man.

On loos it was very clear. Female people in the Ladies, male people in the Gents. If you don't want to go in either, sort out some kind of provision for yourself. Just like the women who won't use the mixed-sex loos at various London theatres and locate suitable premises to have a wee before and after the performance.

It isn't that simply when it comes to trans-identified females. They can be lawfully excluded from female only space on the basis of their masculinised appearance. Clearly there needs to be third spaces for such women.

For rape crisis and support services, I think that there should/could be LGBTQ+ services. The needs and experiences align more closely than with those of women.

Oh, FFS! Have we not had several years to work this through? TQ+ was forcibly added to the LGB to exploit the success of gaining LGB rights. TQ+ is at war with the LGB. TQ+ is homophobic. It says LGB people shouldn't be same-sex attracted, they should be same gender attracted, so that straight men who self-ID as lesbians can get to have sex with lesbians. Lesbians have said no and been told by Nancy Kelley of Stonewall that they're like racists for not being willing to have sexual relationships with men. Lesbians are not attracted to people with penises, even if that penis comes with a £50 gender recognition certificate.

So leave the LGB out of it. We're same-sex attracted. End of, and we have nothing, absolutely nothing, in common with TQNB+ people with gender dysphoria or autogynephilia or fetishes.

Transmen are welcome in women's loos. Transwomen are welcome in men's loos.

Life-changing decisions come with life-changing consequences. Think of all the women who've had to give up visiting their local leisure centre or cinema because the loos are unisex and they don't want to have to deal with a man in the basin area. Don't you care about them?

Again, why not both? We need better provisions for anyone not adequately served by standard toilets.

Males regardless of how they dress or what surgeries or medication they use need to use the men's facilities. If their has to be a gender neutral space then make that the men's toilets, changing rooms and so on and leave the women's spaces for real women only.