Men who say they are women

I'm still baffled by someone using "realist" as some sort of insult. It's like a flat earther calling someone who believes that the Earth is sphere a "shape realist" thinking this proves their point. It's bizarre.

The only way genderists can make the claim that people born male are "women" is to change the meaning of the word "woman".

However, that's just a word. It doesn't change the reality that around half the human race is born female and a male person is not part of that group.

So, when these male people say they are "women", it doesn't mean they are the same as the female half of humanity at all. It just means they use the word "woman" in a different way.

And in choosing to use a different meaning of "woman" from the meaning under which "women"'s history of oppression and exploitation was lived, and because of which "women"'s spaces, rights and protections were created, they cannot then morally or logically claim they have right to any of these things.

It is nothing more than a con trick based on changing what the word woman means now to include them,.then saying this gives them rights based on what woman meant then.

All you need to do to demolish the facade of honesty and good faith is to ask why, if "women" aren't necessarily born physically female, is it not ok for there to be separate protections and rights and language for the half of humanity who are born female and live with the consequences of that all our lives?

Then watch the dissembling and flapping and rage as they try to justify the unjustifiable.

My material reality for more than 3/4 of my life is identified as female by everyone but sex realists. I don't need your validation, I have a life.

That's just bonkers, female is a sex and if you're not identified as female by the 'sex realists' then you're not really a female. It's not about they're validation it's about you not really being female, it's there in the words you used yourself.

Narcissim.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/mar/20/former-met-officer-systematically-groomed-raped-girl-woman-jailed?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Men who insist on ruining boundaries, undermining safeguarding and using single-sex spaces intended for females are 100% responsible for making it easy for their fellow men to commit crimes like this.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/2035135212573925771?s=20

https://nitter.net/salltweets/status/2035135212573925771?s=20

And what we’re seeing from these men commenting here and on other social media is that they don’t care. Genderists like Sophie Grace Chappell (Philosopher) who, when he was discussing maintaining single-sex spaces to protect women and girls from sexual assault by men claiming to be women, opined that, '‘…there’s the odd anecdote' and that '… It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics…'

And as predicted as soon as witching hour in the UK arrived... This thread has gone as anticipated.

So you think it's credible for Iran to chair human rights committees? Because otherwise it undermines their position on sex and you'd literally tolerate anything provided it otherwise supported your position?

Ok.

Yeah we get it. You hate human rights really because if we talked about anything else we might have to acknowledge the status and importance of sex in women rights.

My material reality for more than 3/4 of my life is identified as female by everyone but sex realists. I don't need your validation, I have a life.

Well I understand that some male people believe that their subjective reality, that is only supported by philisophical theory, should be treated as if that subjective reality is the material reality that they are female people.

The document and process was shared in response to the request to provide more information.

If you wish to pack the declaration with all of your additional concerns, that is between you and the UN.

”obsessive moralist campaigning against bodily autonomy”

Oh. You mean like those campaigning to ignore women’s consent over who should be in provisions where they feel vulnerable and need male people to be excluded?

You mean like those campaigning or saying it is ok to ignore women’s consent to whether a male health professional touches them when they have asked for a female health care professional as an example?

You mean like those who believe it is moral for a male person to be locked in a cell with a female person and that female person being told it is a female person they are locked in with? That kind of bodily autonomy?

I see. That's your belief then.

It really doesn’t evidence that at all though.

If someone believes that a male person can be a female person, I guess people will use that as a guide as to whether they are credible on any issue.

Hence why the UN Women are not a credible organisation when it comes to centring female people or even representing female people’s interests at all.

It is evidence the rest of the world considers its focus on all women and genuine issues affecting women and girls to be a more fruitful use of its attention than obsessive moralist campaigning against bodily autonomy and personhood.

There is a reason that the organisation called UN Women is known as unwomen. And any organisation for women that appoints a male person as their special ambassador to that organisation is indeed ‘unwomen’.

So, no. That vote in the UN does not provide “evidence to back up his statement that the entire rest of the world isn't hung up about sex n gender”.

It would be also contradictory because the point to be supported by evidence was that the UK was the odd country out. That vote being suggested as ‘evidence’ had UK voting with the rest of the world contradicting the point being made. The UK is one of the member states that voted in the block.

www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/csw70-2026-membership.pdf

The suggestion is also offensive considering that fairly recently, in 2023 I believe, the UN allowed Iran to chair an annual meeting about human rights. I don’t believe many people find the UN voting credible these days.

https://press.un.org/en/2026/wom2249.doc.htm

Do they hear themselves when they say stuff like this?
I mean... 😂

You're right, the police don't have a great record on defending women's rights🙄
But if your police office could be bothered to respond to your complaint, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has a definition of 'nuisance' which is clearer than 'your behaviour might upset people'.

And if the man you have reported refuses to leave the women's toilet when told to do so by the owner/manager of the premises, it would be an offence of trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

A couple of test cases would be useful, but none of this would be necessary if men, however they identify, just stayed out of women's spaces.

The trans juggernaut seems to be running out of steam, and there have been a series of legal roadblocks put in its way, so hopefully the number of men obsessed with using the women's toilet will dwindle!

This video?

https://x.com/womenreadwomen/status/2035109786036138427?s=46

WTAF?

Juat want to pee …

You are right. I wasn't trying to compare borderline riotous behaviour with the male/female binary! I was just illustrating that the trouble with these generic "your behaviour might upset people" laws is that nobody is exactly sure what specific behaviours fall under them until it is tested in court and precedent set.

If I spotted an ordinary man entering the women's toilets, and alerted a nearby police officer that he had done so, I would not be in any way confident that the police officer would arrest that man under the aforementioned public order act. Even if he did, I wouldn't be confident that it would get to court (even after repeated offences), nor that the court would actually decide that it does meet the requirements for conviction under this law. If I, an ordinary citizen, cannot be sure whether this behaviour meets the bar, and it has never been tested, then the law is not clear.

We've already discussed this week.

Definitely some with Mummy issues. Id include my brother in that.

Somehow failed to load the pictures.

But I don't know, because to be honest I'm not sure exactly where the bar would be between slightly riotous but basically inoffensive behaviour, and an actual offence.
Fortunately when it comes to sex-segregated toilets, it's as binary as human sex: if you're a man, however you identify, you should not use the women's toilet.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, you don't even have to be unsure about what is meant by 'man' or 'woman' - biology decides.

So it's not a issue of being slightly male in the women's toilet, or very male in the women's toilet, or being riotously male in the women's toilet, it's about being male in the women's toilet

It's not complicated, and ordinary people, including transwomen, can grasp quite easily that toilets are segregated not by gender but by sex, and act accordingly.

Unless of course they are for some reason seeking to
'obstruct the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public ',
i.e. in this case the right to have women-only spaces that have no men in them.

I recall that Lennon/Katie was caught posting on social media under a pseudonym. I sometimes wonder whether he's had the nerve to come on here.

On Twitter/X, he was arguing about his right as a trans person to be in women's spaces and berating those who disagreed with the Scottish government's attempts to push through pro-trans legislation.

[PS I take back what I said about the jeans earlier. There's one pic of Katie in floral leggings.]

This is the person who is supposed to be unsafe in men's spaces: