Let's look at some of the different areas where women are being disadvantaged because of male access to provisions. Just to head off the 'it is only a few' arguments too, it doesn't take more than 1 male in a single sex provision to impact many female people.
Sport - this is incredibly well documented now. There is now a group of women who are collating all the elite results from across the world by sport on https://hecheated.org/index.html. However, this team also then tracked back the progress of just how many female athletes were potentially harmed in any way by the inclusion of a male athlete. What they found was just 2 male athletes in Maine negatively impacted over 1,600 girls. In 2024, they calculated the following which is very much an underestimation:
"Men and boys have participated in over 8,731 women's competitions.
They have placed 1st at least 2,903 times and top three at least 4,747 times.
They have stolen at least $1,600,087 in prizes and 446 awards...."
The gains in sport has happened because female athletes and their supporters have been campaigning for a very long time to remove male people from female events.
Representation - this was actually one of the major aspects for the For Women Scotland case. The 'sex balanced' boards in the Scottish Government. Under that law 'sex' was said by the Scottish Government to be gender. So that a board or panel that had 8 places which had 8 male people would still be considered gold standard of female representation if 4 of those male people had said they were female.
In the UK Labour Party a few years ago, this actually did happen with a LGBT+ board. That board had 75% male people but was supposed to be 'sex' balanced.
There are enough male people in 'Women's officer' roles around the UK to be a major concern, they are there of course, because they said they are women. Some of those 'women's officers' have actively prevented women who reject that male people can be female from participating in discussions or accessing events. How is 'representation' of women?
By the way, the reason those male people take those roles is to then feed into the major political party 'women's officer' roles or to lead the Women's groups in those parties. Those roles are feeder roles into political roles.
We currently have the Green Party who have male people in leadership roles in the Green Women. But sure.... female people are being really well served apparently.
Then we also get the male people who are being recognised for their excellence in 'female' awards. Male inclusion in the Top x Women awards. Male sportspeople being given 'Women's player of the year' awards.
How great is that?
The Supreme Court ruling came about because a group of women, who met on MUMSNET took the Scottish Government to court. This action has already had significant impact and it will have a great deal more when organisations are forced to comply with the law.
Education - currently in our schools we have female students dehydrating themselves so that they don't have to use the toilets which are now mixed sex. A year or so ago, there were protests by male and female students to return UK school toilets to being single sex provisions. Did you miss this?
If our girls are dehydrating at school, how do we expect them to perform?
Also, boys who say they are girls demanded that they be allowed to sleep in girl's accommodations. And to include those boys who said they were girls in sports, some primary schools changed their sports days to only run mixed sex events where boys raced against girls. How is this supposed to encourage girls to participate in sports?
Even our children are involved in campaigning to reverse these poor decisions.
Prisons - this has been well covered already. But how is it safe for women to be locked in a prison where they have to share that space with male people. Particularly when those female prisoners have a very high likelihood of being sexual violence surivivors or domestic violence survivors.
Even after the Supreme Court has clarified that when a service is designated as being female it should be female, there are still reports of some male prisoners in the female prisons in the UK.
I believe I posted an article about a woman who complained that one male prisoner used to never shower with the curtain pulled, and if I remember the story correctly, would be showering with an erection. Those women in the prison had nowhere to go.
But apparently, this is not disadvantaging women.
It was only through women campaigning (including female ex-prisoners and ex-prison governors) that the policy on male people accessing female prisons has been progressively changed. After Isla Bryson, a change went through that no male sex offenders were to be allowed to be housed in a female prison. Now with the SC judgement, there should be no male prisoners left in female prisons.
Women's health services - there has been significant issues where female health services have been compromised by allowing male people access to provisions for female people. This includes not only hospital accommodation, but also covers when a female patient requests a female health professional.
There is an Mumsnet auditing group at the moment who is going through to check which NHS trusts are abiding by the policies and the guidance.
However, there has been policies that have told staff that if a female patient complains that there is a male patient in their female hospital room, that staff must tell that female patient that there is not and to 'educate' that female patient.
We also have had a woman have her surgery cancelled at one London hospital because she requested an all female care team. We have had another woman used as an example of a hateful bigot because she asked to make sure that she only had her mammogram team being all female staff.
Even worse, we have male health care professionals declare that they will present themselves to a female patient if that patient has asked for a female HCP. And will only leave if the patients directly rejects them. While also then in a past instance, laying a complaint against a dementia patient for misgendering them. And that is just Dr Upton of the NHS Fife trust. There are other examples, it is not hard to find.
The only way these issues are being exposed is because some very brave female patients have been vocal about their treatment or women have made complaints about the services. Or in the case of Upton, a brave nurse took her employer to court.
Women's rape / domestic services - when female people have needed to access rape services, or refuges for domestic abuse victims, they have been forced to accept male people. Either as a fellow service user where the service is advertised as 'single sex', or as a service provider when a male person has declared that they are a female person and been employed as a female person.
This is also well documented. The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and the Brighton and Hove Survivors Network are very public cases. If you don't know about them look them up. There is plenty about each of these on MN.
There have also been user reports of women stuck in refuge accommodation where male people who have accessed the service have wanked watching porn in the next bed in a shared room and have been abusive in other ways. If you read enough of these survivor stories, it is very clear that there is a problem.
But if you choose not to read widely or to dismiss incidences as being irrelevant or just one, I guess you show that you actually don't centre the care of women and girls and will accept some to be harmed because of your own personal belief about what women should be aiming for.
Shall I go on? There are plenty of other areas that I have not covered such as women being targeted for police action by activists who want them to STFU, women's events being cancelled because they were targeted, women losing their jobs and their opportunities because they didn't agree that some male people are female people.
Or will it all just be dismissed because it didn't happen, or it wasn't serious enough, or it is just the one, or she didn't deserve to be treated with respect as she is not a good person, or any other fucking weak excuse to continue to deny that there is an issue.