The Guardian - Trans Australian kicked out of toilet

Skimmed as it is really long. JKR gets a mention.

Helleofabore · Today 10:50

For those who want the twitter link to the screenshots

Thanks, I've left a comment, hope he reads it.

Does anyone know this Koko club?

Jack has no GRC, and it has been long acknowledged (even by the gender addled Scottish government) that no GRC = transwomen are men and transmen are women.

In the longer article Jack says he doesn’t use the men’s when “presenting femme”:

“Not out of genuine fear of violence, but more as an escape from the smirks and side-eye I’d experienced in men’s toilets in the past. If I was going to make people uncomfortable in either room, the lesser disruption had seemed to be to go with female friends whose presence could reassure other women of my non-rapist credentials.”

Budge up, women, there’s an entitled man who wants to avoid <checks notes> side eye in the men’s and he doesn’t care if it makes you uncomfortable.

For the Guardian to post such a heavily edited version of this tale (which may or may not have happened) is exactly why so many women no longer read it.

That’s all you need to be a woman, full make up and a dress?
I am betting this did not happen.
Job advert “Toilet cop needed to throw women with dicks out of female toilets”

In an earlier piece, Jack wrote this:
MY IDENTITY
Kellie-Jay and I would agree on one thing, which is that I am 'Not A Woman'. In her case it is because she is a gender essentialist bigot. In mine, because I was shaped by a world where it was made clear to me that womanhood could only be achieved through hormones, surgery and the pretence that you had never had a male childhood. I didn’t call myself a girl growing up, I wanted to be one, which is not the same thing.
Since I haven’t altered my body chemistry and generally don’t have to deal with sexism, I rather think of myself as a ‘failed transsexual’ by the more binary standards I grew up with. But nor do I like to consider myself male. And that was the subject of the essay I wrote for an anthology called Nothing to Hide, which I was speaking about in Sunshine library when the police arrived and caused such a stir.

see also Travis Alabanza as I linked.

Trans Australians are Australians.
If there is no Australian toilet, they should use the one representing the sex they were born.

It’s really interesting that at no point does Jack say he is a woman (which is the justification TIMs usually give for using women’s spaces). He says he uses men’s facilities if he has men’s clothes on and women’s facilities if he has his frock and make-up on.

I mean- what? That has nothing to do with the SC ruling anyway. As far as I’m aware there has never been a law or guidance in the UK saying which toilets people should use according to what they’re wearing.

If we were going to base provisions on clothing, most women would be using the men’s as so many of us wear trousers on a day to day basis.

Jack says he is trans but I think he actually just means ‘I like wearing a range of different clothes’.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3080957-To-alert-you-to-the-fact-that-Topshop-just-changed-its-policy-to-let-men-into-the-womens-changing-rooms

I really do wish that Jack would come on the thread and answer some questions. He won't of course.

It’s reminiscent of Travis Alabanza at Topshop 7 or so years ago. He also had a big whining tantrum in the press.

a Camden club called KOKO

I was thinking that @GCAcademic and many genderists don’t have the self awareness to realise how it comes across.

Drunk and anxious as I was, the idea of going to that male bathroom, alone, was just impossible.

Why would that be?

trans people can be yanked from their sports teams

They are not "their" teams.

I suspect that someone GC agreed to publish this - perhaps there are still some lurking at the Guardian.The blatant solipsism and male dominance on display in this article is a gift to the cause.

The longer version of the article on substack mentions Mumsnet twice and includes a link to a Mumsnet thread so it seems likely that the writer will be reading this. Perhaps Jack will join the thread to answer PP's questions, allay concerns and correct misunderstandings.

Notice also that he ‘pisses’ whilst his gal pals ‘pee’.

God, I’d be so embarrassed about the quality of that writing. It’s cringeworthy, so lacking style and hardly makes you suspend your disbelief.

"Because that’s the thing about oppression: it widens. It affects us all."

so that moment when someone discovers that the world does not revolve around them counts as oppression now?

I think the story is pretty simple if you are just read the facts. A man wearing dress and makeup goes to bar, gets served and is left in peace to enjoy his evening with friends. When he goes to the toilet he is challenged by a female bouncer who is likely there primarily to watch for drug activity because of the risk to the venue's license if this goes on unchecked. Bouncer directs him to correct toilet, he makes a scene. In order to persuade him to move the bouncer adopts a more sympathetic approach (female bouncers are usually complete bosses at de-escalating stuff) and he leaves the ladies.
The venue is accepting, it just wants patrons to obey the law, whether related to drugs or using single sex facilities correctly. There is literally nothing to write about except the man's desire to have his feelings and wants override the law and when thwarted from his entitled charade start making a drama about it. Then he further pumps up and monetises the pity party by writing a whiny newspaper article about it.

Given the state of the world and the denial of truly basic rights going on all over you'd think the Guardian would have a bit more class than to be a platform for this first world me me me pseudo-martyrdom drivel which is based on nothing more than entitled men wanting access to women's spaces, sports and rights.

So his view is basically that he can go into whichever loo he wants to?

which venue by the way?

That bouncer might need support. And maybe gardening if this ever was taken to court.

The court ruling has diddly squat to do with this “genderqueer” man who never had a legally sanctioned right to use female only spaces.

Maybe Jack off somewhere else.

Im confused! Is this an example of his ‘speculative fiction’ and the Guardian has failed to present it as such, or did he claim this to be true?