Dozens of men discuss ignoring single sex space rules

Final paragraph especially

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1J7UkXstZw/

Have to be careful of this kind of thing though.

I would suggest never to film in womens spaces. Doesn't matter what sex you are, do not do this.

In those who pass better, what ultimately betrays their sex is this sense of incongruity.

Lots of makeup on a face that's biologically male (jawline/brow). Fake breasts on a male physique. A clearly male voice in the context of all of this.

For trans identifying females they can pass better at first glance sometimes, especially if they are sporting some facial hair, but again it's the incongruity of a slighter physique, smaller hands and feet, the gait.

We are biologically primed to recognise sex. That extends to recognising when things dont quite stack up

I did just that, and found this:
MarieDeGournay · 18/09/2025 14:56
I've seen the same thing said about Michelle Obama - it seems to be a 'thing', partly about insulting the woman, more about dissing the men who married them - if Macron and Obama married men, they are worthless as allegedly heterosexual men...and by extension as politicians and leaders of their countries.
Weird.

which was very much in agreement with the majority of the posts, and 17 posters of them 'liked' [i.e. positive reactions] what I said.

So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by linking to that thread, I don't think it proves what you think it proves.

Well, I'd be the first to admit that I'm a bit cynical. I thought that the FWS judgement, now over a year old, would lead fairly quickly to the re-establishment of single sex services and spaces. It didn't. Now that the guidance is laid, I hope you're right and the issue can be solved promptly. But any fair assessment would be that TRA obduracy has been impressively effective so far.

Testosterone can make women's voices much deeper, yes.

But there is nothing that works the other way so trans identifying men are always given away by their voice as far as I can see.

Last weekend, I went to an event where I was introduced to a family member of the host. Now, I happen to have known for some time that this young person is a trans man but I'd never seen them, not even in pictures.

I initially saw the person from some distance about 5'5 (maximum), short, spiky hair. Smooth face (don't think they shave) flat chested (binding/masectomy idk). Masculine coded clothing (especially given the event). But, my first thought upon seeing them and basically guessing who they are was that they obviously look female. You can tell they are female. If not, maybe they look like a boy of around 13 or 14.

Then we were formally introduced. I think i was visibly shocked by their voice. It was so deep. Deeper than any man in my family. Like, the bass was wild. It would be a deep voice for a man.

I wondered if they were putting it on, but they seem to speak like that all the time. Can hormones do that? I don't know.

Anyway, my point is that with this person, if you were more unsure than me about their sex, their voice wouldn't lead you to a correct answer.

There are some major procedural flaws in that redditor's strategy but obviously I'm not going to point them out on here. Let him find out for himself.

BTW loved the blasé "seek legal advice" 😆

I would suggest though making sure to film any individual busy trying some 'intimidation' in women's spaces.

keep overwhelming service providers, normalise trans presence and intimidate anyone who pushes back.

Yeah that's exactly what pushed women to the SC and the SCJ coming out. It was based on much shouting of 'it's the law!' and people believing them.

Law has now been clarified. That door is now closed. Service Providers CANNOT now ignore the law as clarified and ignore/refuse women their rights without heavy costs and court action - the exact part that got the TRA movement what it wanted, the threat of court action - and intimidation to force women out of their rights when everyone is now crystal clear about those rights, is just plain bullying and harassment. Services will need to apply their 'we will not tolerate our staff being abused' policy, and shouting at and intimidating women in a manly way is going to lead to the women/service providers calling the police.

There is no other option but to accept that other people have rights too.

Nope.

Three and four year olds can tell the difference between male and female. There’s probably evidence somewhere showing that non-verbal one year olds can tell the difference too but I can’t be bothered to waste time googling because all the disingenuous how can you tell the difference between men and women? posters know damn well they can tell the difference too but are too entrenched in admiring the naked emperor’s clothes to climb out of the hole they’ve dug themselves (which must reach to the Earth’s core by now).

Tiresome bolleaux.

My, that's a lot of typing to do one-handed.

They don't understand the law, they don't understand the obligations and there's very little chance they'll get themselves together to do any of this. It's far easier to chuck a few bottles of piss around and graffiti some buildings.

Exactly. In 2003 we didn’t do that.

It's true that the unhinged and uninformed are well represented. But the over all strategy is sound - keep overwhelming service providers, normalise trans presence and intimidate anyone who pushes back. That's, after all, how we got here. It's going to require a long period of pushback to reclaim single sex services and spaces and the EHCR guidance not being sent back is an essential aspect of that.

I just saw a video of Dylan Mulvaney graciously promising never to steal anyone's husband
Hands down one of the funniest things I have ever seen on the Internet (or anywhere else actually.)

Read first 3 pages or so. So far the thread is 90% feminist women saying the accusation, which seems to come from a specific book, is ridiculous and typical misogyny, plus one poster who believes the conspiracy, and one who doesn't believe it but is angry that women have to prove they are women because they do not look feminine enough. So a lot closer to what I expected that to what you suggested.

It's 20 pages long, so that's as far as I'm going. If it later turned into Gender Critical Feminist women en mass accusing Ms Macron of being a man do feel free to share direct links to the relevant posts.

My eleven year old boy is obviously male. He has hands the size of shovels which are already bigger than mine even though he's not yet taller than me. By comparison I have very dainty hands. He hasn't entered puberty yet. The idea that we can't tell the difference between males and females is fucking ridiculous.

Like the man who says ‘my wife is Glaswegian and will deal with anyone’ whilst he breaks the law and women’s trust. Just goes to show - bullying men will be be bullying men

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5412886-macrons-to-offer-scientific-court-evidence-to-prove-brigitte-is-a-woman-lawyer-says?page=1

Have a read through some of the posts here

Oh PLEASE 🙄

Did we have fucking genital inspections before all this absolute lunacy took over? No. Men stayed out of women’s spaces. I’ve never, ever seen a woman in the toilets who wasn’t clearly recognisable as a woman even if she looked masculine.

Stop pretending it’s all so terribly difficult. It isn’t. A man in a dress looks like a man in a dress. We all know one when we see one.

Toilet behaviour is sexed. That’s why we have single sex toilets.

Talking of Victorians, they liked to design toilets like cottages. That’s where the term cottaging comes from. Most of the ‘cottages’ are now closed as a result.

‘Spending a penny’ was to put a penny in the slot in the toilet door to open it. Urinals were free in an attempt to stop men pissing on buildings.

Buildings have urine deflectors around them -particularly in corners because of men’s behaviour.

When the Sexual Offences Act had a section added for sexual activity in a public toilet, it was actually argued in Parliament that it was discriminatory towards men as try as he might, the MP couldn’t find any examples of 2 women being prosecuted.

The reason cubicles are so tiny is they were based around a man standing up to urinate in them (and also it was to stop 2 people being in the cubicle).

Men building toilet rooms, centre the toilet in a cubicle. This is not useful for women who need the toilet centred after the sanitary bin is in. We need larger cubicles for having to undress and turn round.

100% of voyeurs in prison are men.
100% of teachers, doctors, school staff, and all other professions putting hidden cameras in toilets are men.
100% of rapists in toilets are men.

The only time I got a statistic that possibly could be female was where it was by gender not sex and I could work out it wasn’t female in all but one case which it’s impossible to identify by crime code. But all sexual crime listed by sex was male.

I could go on but these arguments are so daft and boring now.

Ironically, TRAs are often the worst at gender policing women. Have you ever noticed how often the go-to insult for feminist gender critical women is to do with how they look? Very weird

Yes, I've noticed this. The insults from loud, vocal transwomen throwing insults about various gender critical women's appearance is disgusting. Sharon Davies being a recent victim of it. I'd say the nasty comments about Macron and Obama etc are mainly said by men too.