To be shocked by a transwoman guest on Jeremy Vine today asking a female caller what sex she is - and whether she’s “been tested?”

[AlertMaker]

I genuinely couldn’t believe what I was hearing. A woman called in to make a point and instead of responding to her argument, the guest asked her what sex she was - and even questioned whether she’d been tested to confirm it.

I found it incredibly demeaning and unsettling. AIBU to think this kind of behaviour undermines the whole idea of respectful discussion and actually silences women?

What’s going on is that men are doing whatever the fuck they want and some people are enabling it. As the PP said she’s only been questioned since the mid 20-teens. That’s the fault of TRAs.
What’s your solution to preserving the legal right of women (and yes, we do know what we mean by that and yes, in the majority of cases it’s obvious) to single sex spaces if it’s not politely asking men to leave?
FWIW I’ve never needed to do it, but other women on here have. And some of them have been SAed or worse by the men concerned. So what would you do?

Edit: also not my rights. The rights of all women and girls, including ones much more vulnerable than I am. Or than the men transgressing their boundaries are.

They're pissed off about the ruling and acting like petulant children.

As the PP said she’s only been questioned since the mid 20-teens.

That’s the fault of the TRAs the people who did the questioning .

Why did they suddenly need to question? Because that’s when TRAs started the TWAW nonsense and insisted they had every right to be in single sex spaces. Why are you so keen to defend men at the expense of women?

I absolutely fucking HATE this argument.

For millenia, we've been able to tell who 99.9% of the population were male and who were female using our eyes and ears. The only things that have changed is trends, like what we wear and how we "identify".

An androgynous person needs only open their mouth to make it obvious in most cases, and on the phone, it really doesn't matter does it? In person, if you genuinely pass as the opposite sex, then have at it and use the facilities you want. No one will give a shit. Reality is that most males look male, and most females even with a beard, objectively look female, or at least unthreatening.

Facilities that require proofs will take proofs.

PS did anyone see Emily somebody on ITV news being interviewed about this? "She" said walking down the street she's viewed as female so will use female facilities. The absolute audacity of ITV News to interview a trans woman, who looks and sounds male, and has literally taken medals from women, to be the only one interviewed, giving the opinion that JK Rowling has loads of political clout and has paid for this to happen made me rage earlier.

Just a nitpicking point. It is not women who put the ‘heat’ into the discussion. Anyone who considers joining Starmer in using this phrase, is framing women to be the problem through ‘equal behaviour’. This is not the case at all.

Just a nitpicking point. It is not women who put the ‘heat’ into the discussion. Anyone who considers joining Starmer in using this phrase, is framing women to be the problem through ‘equal behaviour’. This is not the case at all.

“I am asking why are people so hyper aware and hyper vigilant of who is in the bathroom in general (unless of course they give you cause for concern with their behaviour)”

No one needs to justify to you why they are hyper aware. Do you want all of us to detail our traumas just to make you feel it is acceptable for us to be hyper aware? That is what your posts is coming across as.

Women are hyper vigilant for any number of reasons. The point is, women and girls need to not be shamed by asking polite questions. No one should be abused, but no one should be overstating abuse as polite question.

It you want to fucking shame people about why they are hyper aware and hyper vigilant, go and blame Stonewall and other organisations.

Depends on how you look at this.

Male people can be legitimately excluded from female single sex spaces. Meaning that for that instance, female people’s rights trump male people’s rights. Otherwise, the SC judgement would look different.

Male people do have the right to safety, privacy and dignity from the opposite sex. Just as female people do. That is the equality of the law. What no male person has in the UK at the moment is the right to demand that a designate female single sex space is open to them based on their philosophical belief about themselves.

It was when Stonewall started to falsely advise their interpretation of the EA. It is short sighted to not think there might be a significant correlation in the timing.

Also please note everyone

Bridges fully believes that Bridges is female and looks like a female person. Egged on by Bridges mother who used to post regularly on MN.

And yet, if the provision states it is female, it is to be single sex. If organisations don’t wish to provide single sex provisions, unless another statute of law specifies this, then no they don’t have to. But how many place ‘don’t have to?’ I would suggest not as many as some people hope.

He’s right at the bottom, but I’ve seen legal interpretation that says the quote at the top isn’t correct. What the law says is that single sex means exactly that. Nowhere is blogged to provide single sex spaces, but if they do then they are obliged to be clear they aren’t for trans women. Nothing in the law stops a pub, for eg, classifying all its toilets mixed sex (though 8n think there are rules about what they must look like) however if the6 have a ladies and a gents then they are obliged to ensure that the single sex space is single sex.
Not sure which if the threads I saw it on, but that’s a legal opinion, not mine.

I think anyone who has read the judgment knows this already. There is no obligation to provide single sex spaces, yet most venues do nonetheless. Almost everywhere has two facilities, women's and men's. The pertinent part is that if venues wish to still provide facilities segregated in this way, it is now properly understood which one we all should use. I suppose there's nothing to stop venues labelling their toilets 'women and transwomen' and 'men and transmen'. But I think that's highly unlikely to happen in any significant numbers, and may well alienate women customers, who outnumber transwomen customers, so not good for business.

The pertinent part is that if venues wish to still provide facilities segregated in this way, it is now properly understood which one we all should use.

No I believe this is a totally erroneous reading. You can still have women and men’s toilets and you don’t need to exclude trans women from the womens. Same with sports. That is what Lord Sumption is saying. there is no obligation to re-label toilets as a result of this law. Simply it is that if a service does want to exclude trans women for specific proportionate reasons (eg women’s refuges) they can lawfully do so, as has always been the case.

God just why ARE women having a reaction to the increase of males of various identities colonising their facilities and services. It's a total mystery.

I think that if a venue is going to declare a space as being 'for women' it will be expected to exclude transwomen, or lay itself open to accusations of misrepresenting the space. Because the one thing the judgement is crystal clear about is that the word women does not include transwomen.

Thing is, there is no counterfactual alternate universe SC ruling that would not have resulted in males-of-special-identity barging into women's spaces and declaring their absolute right to be there, plus threats of violence, plus screeds of obfuscation about how complicated sex is.

If the SC had ruled the other way, the exact same things would have happened. From the Righteous POV, the only difference would be the triumphant tone in the shouting.

that the word women does not include transwomen

nope. They were specifically clear that they were not saying that. Paragraph 2.

I think this cartoon covers it though.

https://x.com/5uffragette/status/1915388229542437174?s=46

Most pubs I've been to don't say 'women' and 'men'. They have a little stick figure with a dress and one without a dress. PP are correct. The judgement does not mean that you have to exclude transwomen. It is still not illegal for trans people to enter facilities of their choosing, or for landlords etc to allow that to happen in their space. My friend owns a pub. There is absolutely no way she will be excluding trans people from any toilet in her pub, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Would you like to quote the bit you think doesn’t say trans women are excluded from women only spaces? Because that’s a bit of an outlier as a legal opinion.

Did you get any further than Paragraph 2? There are quite a few more.