Talking to non GC people

Bun fights.

The women on here are so knowledgeable, so well-read, so interesting and tbh so bloody patient imo with people who flounce in with opinions they pulled from their arse 5 minutes ago because they're so kind talking crap that the women on here have dealt with eleveny billion times before.

And you come on here, not having read up, not knowing jack and describe those conversations as 'bun fights'. Oh hee hee hee! Bun fight! So twee! Silly wims!

And say you're a feminist.

Righteo.

Apologies, my patience for this crap ran out last week when I went into a women's toilets at a pub and there was kill list of women's rights campaigners graffitied on the wall.

@financialcareerstuff can I ask if my quiz made you think differently about the reason single sex design is critically important to anyone at their most vulnerable? It was yesterday at 12.33 in the afternoon on this thread.

You said you wanted mixed sex spaces with private cubicles, have you changed your mind on that?

I can give you some stats and scientific and academic evidence on toilets.

Can you actually answer any of the questions though? Can you explain to me why anyone should think for a second that a man should use female only spaces?

@financialcareerstuff do you get that it isn’t solely about whether we are more likely to be raped in spaces with men in? (Which we are). It’s about basic privacy and dignity for women and girls. About respite from men and boys. No offence, but it sounds like you think that a self selecting group of men’s feelings are more important than those of the majority of women and girls as long as there aren’t safety issues.

Why do women need to produce evidence there have been 'enough' assaults on us to justify retaining our rights to single sex toilets, and all TIM have to do is say they want to use them to have people wringing their hands about how we can make that happen?

Perfectly put.

@FlirtsWithRhinosI think you are trying to talk me out of things I don’t believe and have never said I believe? To answer your question quickly, therefore, no I don’t believe that the fundamental element of womanhood is a state of mind.

I joined this thread, unusually, because it felt like it was framed a bit more around the state of the dialogue, versus a bun fight on the issue itself. Don’t assume that I disagree on any particular issue.

Can you answer a question though @financialcareerstuff please.

What exact differences do you believe there are in a male person who declares they have a transgender identity and a male person without a transgender identity that you feel gives the male person with a transgender identity access to a female single sex toilet?

There are no biological markers for having a transgender identity at all. That leaves the only commonality as those male people having a philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect the material reality of their body’s sex category.

What other philosophical belief that a male might have that doesn’t reflect material reality should get prioritised over sex category in situations where sex matters? Why is this belief given such special status?

I appreciate your polite reply to my slightly ranty post. I admit I thought you were the same poster who is insisting that women can 'fail' sex tests in sports. Apologies.

I'm always happy to discuss with someone new to the topic - what I meant by it 'getting old' was the suggestion that you seemed to be making (again, apologies if I've misunderstood) that women should just be nicer. That's not a trans vs women's rights issue, that's a women's issue from the year dot, so I had expected that most people posting here would be aware of it.

Regarding this post that I've replied to, this is not quite what you asked for but Women's Rights Network published a report on mixed sex changing rooms and how they are a danger to women and girls (supported by data gained from FoI requests):
https://017ee2dd-4ea6-4d7f-869c-a043485bcc87.filesusr.com/ugd/a86851_84e4785fdf1b4c65afa177a0536de74c.pdf

This is relevant because introducing some men (trans women) into a single sex space turns it into a mixed sex one and make a loophole for predators (note, I'm not saying that trans = predator).

As pp's have said, the issue of single sex spaces is not only about safety. I recently experienced having to wash my blood stained hands and mooncup at a sink in a public toilet, with a man in a dress at the next sink. I'm nearly 50 and thought I was way past giving a toss about periods and who knows Im on, but I found it excruciatingly humiliating. I just don't want to have to unwillingly share such a private and personal thing with a person who will have absolutely no idea what I was going through (and would likely be very interested, if not actually turned on by it). The thought of experiencing that as a 12 year old is unthinkably horrendous.

I know you don't just want individual anecdotes but sometimes they can be powerfully illustrative.

“The issue is, how many additional attacks etc is acceptable before someone decides that all male people need to excluded (over about 8 years old)?”

Just for the record, I aim for zero additional attacks. I don’t believe that there should be any policy that allows a male person access to a female single sex space giving him opportunity.

And of course, full exclusion will not prevent attacks from happening but it will allow women to be able to confidently report to security or management or the police that a male was in the toilet. They can also with confidence warn other female people that there is a male person in the toilet so that person can choose to enter or not. Plus female people can have the confidence to leave as soon as they are able, even just turn around and leave, without being told that they are bigots or have shown a micro aggression towards that male person.

What I would like to learn more about is the statistics of safety comparing different toilet set ups for women, and if there has been a statistical rise in attacks since male/trans people being in female toilets became more acceptable

Why on earth do you need this? Isn’t it enough that many women, including of course those of certain religious and cultural backgrounds, simply do not want men in spaces where they are potentially vulnerable? What about privacy and dignity as well as safety? There’s a trans identified man who I’m pleased to say seems to have desisted from using the women’s changing room at my gym. It’s regularly used by pre-teen and early teen girls before and after swimming. What they really don’t need is a 6-foot sixty something man with no idea of appropriate boundaries and a grossly distorted understanding of what it means to be a woman in there with them.

Just to point out, women aren’t talking about ambiguous “proof that trans people commit crimes”.

The ‘proof’ is specifically sexual offending. That is important because it is the sexual offending prevalence that is partly why male people on the whole are excluded.

Not just because they might attack. But because male people commit 98% of sex crimes with women and children being their primary target. it is highly likely that a woman or a child in that toilet facility has experienced male violence or sexual abuse/assault.

So, why should a traumatised female person have to face being in a toilet facility where all that is between them and a male person is a flimsy door, knowing that there might be a male person coming in to the facility? It doesn’t mean that the male person would certainly attack them, of course not. However, the woman or child is in a situation where that cannot just leave until they have finished toileting. Plus there is that greater risk that because it is a male person, there is an undeniable higher risk compared to a female person that the male will attack.

Plus due to the strength difference, that the victim has less chance of getting away than if the attacker was a female attacker. That should be all part of the safeguarding decision.

We have women telling us that they expected to be in a female only space, all of a sudden they are triggered because they hear a man’s voice or they see a person who they correctly identify as male as they go into the toilet facility but have to get to the toilet and cannot just turn around. And when in a cubicle partially undressed they feel hugely vulnerable.

It really isn’t about just actual reported attacks.

I think the problem here is that there are only really two choices - mixed sex or single sex.

The reality of 'inclusive' services is that nobody can challenge another person's right to use the service, so the service is mixed sex.

This is a 2018 article about mixed sex changing rooms

https://archive.is/LMINt

I understand your need for data, but there is no data to show that trans identifying men are less of a risk to women than any other man.

To use an analogy, I would guess that very few men called Archibald who own Great Danes and have red hair are accused of sexual assault each year, so should my lovely friend Archie have special permission to enter women's changing rooms until someone can prove that he is a risk?

My argument would be that women should just be able to set the boundary at 'no men'.

This is the thing. Focusing on whether attacks have increased or not is somewhat irrelevantly narrowing the harms to female people in allowing any male person to access female single sex provisions. Safeguarding should be about ‘harm’ minimisation to female people not just protection from attacks. (This ties also into what female people use toilet spaces for and I also refer to that communal space around the basins which is also important to many female people to be kept female only)

How many female people even bother to report abuse by male people these days? We have posters come to FWR and report to us that they have been sexually abused or assaulted by male people and never bother reporting it. How many of us will also report intimidation by male people? So as I said, what will relying on specific attack reports inform you of regarding the degree of harm being done over all?

And quite frankly, how many additional female people being harmed by male people accessing female single sex provisions is acceptable before someone is convinced that actually, those campaigning for strong safeguarding policy again excluding all male people over the age of about 8 years old will be considered as having a valid point ? 1 extra? 2? 50? 100?

Or is it only attacks? How many of those?

What about other types of sex abuse? How many of those? I found a list the other day of just UK male people with transgender identities who had attacked and abused female people in toilets. What struck me was that there was quite a few cross overs of assaults not in toilets but as part of their charge history those male prisoners had been also charged with sexual abuse of girls or women in toilets. So, not ‘attacks’ in toilets but attacks elsewhere combined with sexual abuse in toilets.

The issue is, how many additional attacks etc is acceptable before someone decides that all male people need to excluded (over about 8 years old)?

Statistics of course can be used to manipulate too but I feel more agency to dig down and find the information I believe is key.

As I said before, lack of agency to dig down and find information is part of the problem.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2025/03/how-gender-ideology-corrupted-government-data

"In February 2024 the government commissioned the UCL professor Alice Sullivan to review how data on sex and gender identity was collected by public bodies. Her report, published on 19 March, revealed that scores of official statistics and data sets have been corrupted over the past decade. “The term ‘sex’ has lost its ordinary meaning in data collection,” she wrote, with implications not just for public policy, but for safety and safeguarding. Some of the greatest risks have been to children."

I really think, if you have an analytical mind, you need to consider whether the framing of the problem is accurate.

Take a step back and before asking what is reasonable or not to accomodate trans women (aka men who think they should be accepted as women) ask yourself exactly why some people with male bodies should be considered more along a "woman" scale than others in the first place.

As a femimist, do you really believe that the fundamental factor of womanhood is how your mind works?

Just to add to this, Seethlaw.

”GC people have been arguing for third spaces for literally years. But TRAs don't want to hear about them, or about any other solution that might be offered”

I have been on threads where someone who has stated that women should be more moderate in their approach then lists the things that we have been suggesting on FWR and in government consultations for years and years. What often happens is that some posters argue that women on FWR are extremists while then admitting that they agree with most of what women have already been campaigning for. It is a head fuck to see that when it happens on threads. And often it comes down to the fact that we use accurate language and that is considered unkind and immoderate.

@Helleofaboreour posts crossed. I didn’t see your last one. Thank you. I will read and absorb.

The problem for sport is that because the difference between trans women and men is entirely a self reported feeling, you can't point to a difference between trans women and men in a way that justifies women's sport including the former but not that latter.

Sport is played with the physical body. So if you make the defining factor between men and women mental, you've just removed the jusification for splitting sports into men's and women's in the first place.

This is a great example of why the genderist position is incoherent - because on the one hand it asserts that the definition of "man" and "woman" based on physical sex is wrong, but on the other hand it wants all the existing conventions and in the case of women, resources and protections to stay the same as they are other than including a subset people of the opposite physical sex based on a new better defintion, even though these things only exist in the form they do because they were based on the needs of physical sex groupings.

If we'd never seen men and women as different phyisical sexes, if we'd always used the "better" genderist definitions, then these single-sex provisions trans people want so badly to access would never even exist in the first place.

Hello Hellofabore, thank you for taking the time and offering to link. You are obviously a go to person for fact stuff, which my brain appreciates.

Personally, for me, the ‘proof’ around biological maleness/ femaleness, or the proof that trans people commit crimes is not where I feel I need more evidence. What I would like to learn more about is the statistics of safety comparing different toilet set ups for women, and if there has been a statistical rise in attacks since male/trans people being in female toilets became more acceptable.

If you have stuff to hand, I’d appreciate it (and maybe others who are lurking would) But I am perfectly happy to go do my own digging, which is what I normally do when I start to focus on something.

If you are after stats on male prisoners with transgender identities, here is some stats that we have gathered @financialcareerstuff .

These are the ones I refered to up thread. Often they are dismissed because some posters demand that we provide them with specific stats for attacks in toilets by this group of male people which is not collected. However, there are cases that have been posted where these attacks have happened and been convicted.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445880-statistics-poll-evidence-archive-thread?reply=149263368&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

The point is though, relying on crime statistics is actually not all that relevant when you consider why female people need single sex toilets and other provisions.

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people.

There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.

-Violence.

-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.

-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.

-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex provisions and many of the above are directly applicable to toilet provision as well as, of course, other single sex provision.

@RapidOnsetGenderCriticthank you for sharing your journey- that is quite a way. and I can only imagine how complex it is to reconcile your belief with loved ones in your life who feel differently.

I believe feminism as a whole, in addition to this issue, is a massive journey and I am still traveling for sure……

And I think you are quite right that I may feel more attacked than the intention and that my posts feel more attacking than was my intention too. It ain’t easy feeling in the spotlight! I’ve been posting on Mumsnet for years and never had more than two or three reactions to any post, then boom! 😂 But I think most of us are actually not too fragile on this thread and will be just fine!

@Greyskyblueskyand @AstonScrapingsNameChangeI take your point and can see why that’s frustrating (being told to be ‘kind’.) It is certainly a trope we women deal with, and even more women of ethnic minorities. I’m sorry if I added to it. Perhaps I misinterpreted the first post as asking whether there was another option to banging one’s head against a wall with middle of the roaders.

I don’t think I’m asking people to spend more time or in fact be kind, but highlight which tactics would feel less like banging heads against the wall. But I realise it is perhaps all very ‘old’ to those of you who have been at this a long time.

I’ve been working very intensely for the last two years on getting better breast cancer care for women and spreading the word on best ways to self check and advocate for yourself. And yes breast cancer has been around for years, as has pretty decent clear information about it, at least in the uk, and many women don’t help themselves by not going for their scans…. but I do have to remind myself that many people I speak to are thinking and learning about it for the first time. Or they may just come scared, when it finally hits them, personally. And that’s ok. In fact it’s kind of the point.

I’ve learned quite a lot from this thread. But It’s certainly not the most relaxing thing trying to participate in these discussions! It takes courage and something of a hard hat!

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

The question is why were the rules changed to let men into women's sports in the first place. What was the point of that?

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

1. the rules were changed to include trans women men in women's sport based on stonewall lying about the equality act. No one asked woman if they agreed; how women felt didn't even cross their mind
2. women pushed back extremely hard at personal & financial cost and the rules have been changed back to reflect the law and reality

that someone genuinely can't see that men in women's sports is wrong boggles my mind