UK radical feminists; what to do?

The right to privacy (not being outed) & the right to not being discriminated as in being 'othered' are human rights that yes even trans people are entitled to.

That right is predicated on the vanishingly few people who are genuinely not recognised as being male. The rights of that tiny number of people does not balance with the rights of the many women who don't want you in their spaces and have an existing right not to have you in their spaces.

It also means, if a person who genuinely passes as female is allowed access, that the 6ft 2 ex rugby player who women find threatening cannot be denied access and nor can the man who is getting visibility aroused by being in a female space wearing "female" clothing. And that is a definite violation of women.

Depends on the individual circumstances & many factors like age, sport, competency level & physical advantage from male puberty whether there is any disadvantage to females. There might be circumstances like 6/7 year olds playing team soccer at the same competency level & size where there may be no disadvantage or it maybe much older where safety & male pubertal advantage causes a disadvantage. The details matter.

Leave children out of this. In this country that isn't an issue because we understand physiology.

There is always disadvantage to females in every sport except equestrianism and even that is only in the dressage. The male advantage starts in the genes that come from the father as the sperm breaks into the egg.

There is no adult sport in the world where males would not consistently outnumber females in the medals of the dresses completed together, and chopping off body parts and taking female hormones doesn't change that.

The whole point of proportionality is to balance rights for potential disadvantages so I'm not sure what your problem is here as people can file for a discrimination claim against their employer in such scenarios.

The law has to have had boundaries. There is an age and career development at which it would be grossly unfair to women for a man to decide he is a woman and put himself on a woman only shortlist for a job or an award.

But as soon as you let one man do that, you can't stop the others because there's absolutely no way of setting that cutoff point.

People in this country, rightly, cannot claim sex discrimination as a female when they are male. As trans, they have all the discrimination rights they need enshrined in law.

I could make the exact claim about you…the difference being I'm right.

Except that you are referring to me having zero respect for men who claim they are women trying to usurp the rights of women and failing to listen to them telling you what problems it causes them. And in that you are absolutely correct.

They can have expertise on aspects of science or data. I believe Keeptoiletssafe is female, but if I'm wrong would her tremendous grasp of legislation and detail be any less valuable coming from a man?

@ProfessorBinturong that’s very kind and you're not wrong about me being a woman. Over several years I have discussed toilet design with lots of people, both women and men, who are extremely knowledgeable. From cleaners, academics, paramedics, charities for those with medical conditions and disabilities, cubicle manufacturers, politicians, architects etc etc. I have two biology degrees and am a qualified teacher so that helps with validity and stats in academic papers, and looking at microbiology.

The fact that I am female and a mother is a distinct advantage in toilet design, as we have different biological needs to men. I have had a miscarriage bleed in a toilet so a kind woman in the next cubicle passed me lots of toilet roll as I quickly had used all in mine. I have had to deal with toddlers, pushchairs and menstruation and not being able to close the cubicle door. These are not unusual things to happen to women.

Women are, along with children and those with certain medical conditions, unfortunately more vulnerable in mixed sex toilets in mixed sex environments. We need knowledge on who is around us.

The most important thing though is I have personal experience of when a single sex design saves someone’s life, and when a full height door led to harm, because that was why I formed a hypothesis about door
design which drove all of this research. However I soon found multiple sources before me had worked it out, and the advantages of doors not reaching the floor and having space over them have been stated in British Standards since at least the 1980s, it was just me bringing it up as a priority again. I tested out all the health and safety advantages listed by looking at many, many real life incidents in the last few years which show they are still as important decades later, for the same reasons. If I couldn’t get data, I tried with FOI requests. I looked at court reports and coroner reports.

In the last few years everyone was so focused on hastily making toilet cubicles private in case it was (or because they changed it to) a mixed sex environment, they forgot why the cubicles weren’t totally private in the first place. In some cases they stated but actively ignored the health and safety advantages, for the privacy in all ‘gender neutral’ design eg in a Scottish school design brochure.

It was another mumsnetter that made me realise the nuance of what I was fighting for - it was not only the compartment door but the single sex environment outside the door. One can’t happen unless the other is already there in place. I had it confirmed in writing by the Health and Safety Executive that the only time cubicle doors are permitted to have door gaps is leading into a single sex environment. In fact Approved Document T (2024) goes further in that all cubicles (whether having gaps or not) should be single sex: The layout when entering, exiting and using a toilet room or cubicle should cater for the safety, privacy and dignity of users. Cubicle doors should only open into single-sex toilet accommodation.

There are lots of different things that can lead to safer non domestic toilets and there are certain things you can do to help mixed sex toilets be safer. However, the majority of toilet provision should be in single sex environments for health and safety. Adding more mixed sex provision needs a proper risk assessment.

You are so utterly predictable.🙄

We are not blind and deaf and gullible in the extreme.

That's debatable.

The right to privacy (not being outed) & the right to not being discriminated as in being 'othered' are human rights that yes even trans people are entitled to.

It's entirely possible that I don't fully understand what people mean with "othered", but transwomen aren't women, they are "other", and really, any man claiming to be a woman "outs" himself. We are not blind and deaf and gullible in the extreme.

The harms you want balancing in relation to women's loos can be balanced without physical harm or risk to any party by the provision of gender neutral facilities.
Why are trans people not campaigning for this instead of for the right to use women's spaces?

The right to privacy (not being outed) & the right to not being discriminated as in being 'othered' are human rights that yes even trans people are entitled to.

The harms that I think (?) you, but certainly others, want balancing in relation to women's sport cannot be balanced. Even shooting is split by sex because males will usually outperform females due to the early impact of make sex hormones. Of all the Olympic sports only equestrian activities are not split by sex, because the horse does most of the work. But even then they had to remove the requirement for females to compete with lead weights to even up the weight advantage, because the weight advantage is necessary to balance the strength disadvantage.

Depends on the individual circumstances & many factors like age, sport, competency level & physical advantage from male puberty whether there is any disadvantage to females. There might be circumstances like 6/7 year olds playing team soccer at the same competency level & size where there may be no disadvantage or it maybe much older where safety & male pubertal advantage causes a disadvantage. The details matter.

In relation to balancing the harm of males being on women only shortlists for prizes and jobs, how can it ever be fair for a man who has lived until his career was well established as a male with all the male advantage that resulted in the creation of a women only shortlist, to decide he is now a woman and eligible to be on women only shortlists?

The whole point of proportionality is to balance rights for potential disadvantages so I'm not sure what your problem is here as people can file for a discrimination claim against their employer in such scenarios.

Finally, you have zero respect for actual women, it shines through all your posts.

I could make the exact claim about you…the difference being I'm right.

That answer has no evidence, statistics or data on toilets. Your source has no mention of toilets or bathrooms. However, how you can read that document and think it doesn’t support my campaign is odd.

The link is specifically regarding areas where sexual violence have been identified as a major issue in Australia so public toilets clearly don't comparatively rate as you conceded yourself by stating most victims know their perpetrators.

Still waiting for your data proving your claim there's more sexual violence in public toilets than workplace/schools/universities & that Amnesty has a women's single sex space policy….but I won't hold my breath given your track record.

I'm very much loving a bunch of women discussing very seriously whether men can have rational options and produce new insights 😂it's like a reverse of all those Enlightment fellas considering whether the female mind can ever truly attain the heights of the male.

To paraphrase Samuel (Samantha) Johnson...

"Ma'am, a man's feminism is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

(This is a joke, I don't actually think it!)

I agree.

Any argument must be able to stand on its own two feet regardless of who is making it. Men can analyse data and law as much as women can.

I believe I've had at least one original thought in my head. On this subject. And some others. Lol.
But I'm very content to declare I've totally been schooled by women re the dangers and poisons of trans ideology.

I don't think men will ever have anything truly original to contribute to women's conversations that isn't them recycling women's wisdom and contributions.

I disagree with that. Men can have relevant and non-recycled expertise.

They can have expertise on aspects of science or data. I believe Keeptoiletssafe is female, but if I'm wrong would her tremendous grasp of legislation and detail be any less valuable coming from a man?

And they have knowledge of male experience that can be a useful contribution to discussions. If someone claims TW can't use some sort of male facilities because [reasons about how men use or behave in that space], then men are better placed than women to say whether that characterisation of the amenity or how men use it is true or not.

And as has just come up on another thread, they can answer questions like 'can men feel their prostate?' (not with a finger, but do you have a physical awareness of it when you sit down for example, or can you feel it working?) An answer to that would definitely not be recycling women's wisdom.

It was pointed out on here that (many?) women would like it if male posters made it clear via their usernames unambiguously they were men, amongst other things so that women could choose to pass on their posts.
It's was expressed in this thread that was the case, and I fully get it. Hence my changing my username, and Bex doing the same.
Still feel the same, even though I totally get why women would pass on men's posts, it's somewhat sad.
From a social/societal point of view.

Never said I'd pass on anyone's comments, just that I don't think men will ever have anything truly original to contribute to women's conversations that isn't them recycling women's wisdom and contributions. As women we've been used to having our inputs overlooked forever, I think any grown man can handle it especially if they're genuinely supporting women's rights, that momentary sadness you feel is a blind spot of male privilege, but then even men on our side will always find a way to tell us we've made them sad if they don't feel validated enough which as GC men they should be aware of seeing in TiMs enough times.

Amazing, isn't it?
Policy makers would be happy to increase the medical risk to people by pushing for floor to ceiling doors in unisex installations for the "greater good" of allowing men into women's toilets.

Yet another poster thinking that women or a woman saying "No" is an invitation to a negotiation. It is not.

No men in women's spaces! We don't care about your long winded mental gymnastics. No means no.

I can translate this one. "Feminism shouldn't centre women. Certainly not until after we've sorted the problem of male inequality."

There was always massive pushback from PoC and indigenous peoples whenever any white person claimed they were black or Native American etc.
Rachel Dolezal and Senator Elizabeth Warren the prime examples.
And guess what, it never captured the zeitgeist.

Yes. As has just been said, no one thought sex was anything other than biological sex so you get ludicrous situations like this. These toilets are then a problem with Building Control, various Approved Documents such as T and M, Health and Safety Executive guidance, British Standards BS6465 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the Equality Act. All these would have to be looked as a starter, if this were allowed in regulations, legislation and guidance.

What you will find in these set ups is that the cubicle doors will go right down to the floor and usually right up to the ceiling. It appears the line in the sand is seeing feet (or the opportunity of the opposite sex watching you on the toilet). These design chances bring risks to health and safety, particularly for anyone at their most vulnerable.

Yes. It's a shame that those involved failed to speak up from the outset. It would have been very powerful if they'd confirmed that "We never imagined that there would be people peddling the fantasy that you can just make up what sex you are" and may have given many parliamentarians the confidence to stand up to the relentless bullying and intimidation from the trans mob.

Interesting, thanks. I also read recently somewhere that gender neutral everything is a common theme in early science fiction and people's ideas about what the future would look like in the middle 29th century. Everyone would be wearing Star Trek like clothes, women would be doing "men's" jobs (though never men going the chores!), and everyone would use the same facilities.

It's as if some people thought this was the logical progression for society and aimed for it and, as it's "progress", it must be good.

Thank you for this. Such an interesting read. The quotes you've selected really do hit the nail on the head.

As does this one:
"The problem is that the grown-ups in the room have turned into cowards, and they are all running away from the fantasists"

Oh yes.

Trans women are not some particularly safe demographic

thanks to Stonewall et al, they aren’t even a clearly identifiable demographic, as that would be exclusionary.

There's a very interesting interview with Trevor Phillips (one of the architects of the EA) in today's Telegraph and his comments apply very aptly to some of our misogynistic scolders. Extract:

".. He says he failed to anticipate the strength of the trans movement in subsequent years. “It never occurred to us for one second that anybody would think of sex as anything other than biologically determined,” he says. “It was an oversight on our part that you would get the rise of a movement based in fantasy. We never imagined that there would be people peddling the fantasy that you can just make up what sex you are. And it never occurred to me that people who make decisions on these things would be engulfed by this fantasy.

He goes on to point out that :
"When I was a student, one of the things we fought for was that women could operate independently of men. Now, according to this new fantasy world, the one thing women cannot do is decide when they want to be separate from men. It’s not just outrageous, it’s insane".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/08/02/trevor-phillips-london-liberals-hated-britain/

Archive link: https://archive.ph/WF0sD

There is no attempt to "balance harm". There have been plenty of cases of trans women attacking women. Trans women are not some particularly safe demographic. They are not dolls. There is no safety for women by allowing these men full access to where women are partially dressed.

The trans community demands this access and basically puts their fingers in their ears when anyone points out offending rates.

There is no doubt that some men who dress in women's clothes are sexual fetists. Law enforcement has long known that many serious sex offenders have a side interest in cross dressing.

The attempt to paint every man who wants to dress in stockings, grow breasts etc as simply expressing some inner female gender identity simply ignores this.

There is no "balance". There is only a demand that we accept all these men.

That answer has no evidence, statistics or data on toilets. Your source has no mention of toilets or bathrooms. However, how you can read that document and think it doesn’t support my campaign is odd.

You can only talk in riddles not facts.

Disappointed but not surprised at your answer.