Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
ArabellaScott · 27/04/2025 09:09

Stepfordian · 27/04/2025 08:56

Good point! When women got the vote it didn’t take away from men, men just didn’t think there was any point as women would just vote as their husbands directed them to. When women got equal pay it didn’t take away from men, if anything men benefitted because household incomes went up. This time men are having something taken away, even though they should never have had it in the first place, the men who are trans can’t go into women only spaces and the men who are not trans now have to share with men they perceive as likely to do something ‘weird’ in the men’s toilets.

Also, it did take away from men. It weakened patriarchy. Lots of men lost power when women were afforded rights.

Rights really are blooming pie; the real issue is whether you think some people are entitled to all the pie because they are bigger and stronger or whether a civilised society aims to help everyone achieve equity.

ThatsNotMyTeen · 27/04/2025 09:11

FlakyCritic · 27/04/2025 07:57

I transitioned more than a decade before the Equality Act existed, when trans people did not have legal recognition through the GRA, but were still allowed to use single sex facilities that best suited us.

No, you NEVER had the 'right' to use single sex facilities, you just stormed in and assumed it was your right because you wanted it. Before the EA, we could have you charged for Indecent Exposure. If the police were called by us, you would be told to stay out. That is proof you never had the right.

the idea of being banned from female facilities was patently ridiculous.

Only ridiculous to your over-weaning Male Privilege. That males are banned from female only facilities is taken as read and common sense, not 'ridiculous.

Faulkner has rolled back Male Privilege and thuggery and restored female rights.

I cried myself to sleep last night - haven't done that for decades - and the tears came right back when I woke up this morning.
Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world. If I go out in public and use the facilities I have used my entire adult life and much of my teens, I am breaking the law. If I use facilities I am now required to use in the absence of unisex facilities, I automatically breach my right to privacy afforded by the GRA by outing myself. It's unworkable, inhumane and astonishingly irresponsible, not to mention in breach of the ECHR.

Emotionally manipulative transperbole. So many of us women cry ourself to sleep at you erasing our rights. Do you give a damn?

Your crusade has destroyed our lives. There are a tiny, tiny number of women in this situation in this country and you have consigned us all to social death. Half my friends are frantically making plans to leave the country; the rest are still in a state of shock. The callousness; the unbelievable cruelty with which our worlds have been torn apart, and the triumphant crowing that has accompanied it, has genuinely shocked me. It is so brazen - so inhuman in its relish at our suffering that it is hard to see it as unintentional. This is a gloating victory lap.

No, YOU did this. You destroyed your own life, and your destroyed female lives. The callousness and cruelty you have in inflicting yourself on innocent women and girls shows you care about no one but yourself, just Male Privilege.

Please think how you would feel to be told that you must now exclusively use male-only facilities, would be sent to a male prison if you decide to stand your ground and break the law that's just detonated your social existence and right to privacy, and people are cheering and gloating and crying tears of joy, then laughing about how upset it is going to make you.

The sheer fucking gall of you. How dare you! You were making a male who asked RAPE SURVIVORS if they orgasmed during their rape, into a victim a couple of days ago. You have shown no consideration for how women and girls feel seeing males in our spaces. You have no humanity and no sympathy. Only selfish Male Privilege. You don't stop to even consider how we feel.

Do what that maggot Mridul Wadhwa told women to do: reframe your trauma!

Edited

Well said.

Honestly, what a lot of fucking drama over where to go to the toilet. I thought TW just wanted to pee? Go do it then. In the gents. Where, by the way, I had to send my boys when they were still in primary school, because they and I respected the needs of women. You are a grown ass man and aren’t less vulnerable than they were as pre pubescent boys. Get on with it

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:15

Faffertea · 26/04/2025 23:18

I feel like “overplaying their hand” gives what lobbyists have been doing too much credit. They didn’t start with GRA for admin purposes, start using loos get carried away and end up here.

They strategised it. They strategised that if they could get males who identify as women into prisons, in what they considered the most difficult circumstance then they could get it accepted everywhere. It was always the ultimate aim. And they used some of the most vulnerable women in our society as sacrifices to some of the worst men. All because of their wants and needs.

I cannot get over the cynicism of that. It was truly despicable.

Quoting this again as it is such a solid point, it was absolutely cynical, intentional, a hostile take over, an act of deliberate colonisation. Intended to be done quietly without public understanding to avoid women being protected or able to resist. And in the full belief that women's interests, privacy and even their safety was absolutely worthless, the only purpose they had was in how men could use them.

Women have been harmed by men doing this. It has taken YEARS to overturn this to stop the harm to women, while men threatened to rape them and kill them, doxxed them, blocked them from services, had them arrested, women have managed to fight through despite a profoundly misogynist state that would much have preferred to go on enabling men to harm them while women were gagged from resisting or complaining about it.

I have no sympathy to spare for sadness that the access to continuing this harm has finally been thwarted. Absolutely none. I could search through and find examples of the posts that made it very clear the person who wants sympathy and apology now for women having finally managed to get their existing bloody rights in law to work against men has been and is fully invested in this trampling of women and their rights in order to be able to use them for their own agenda.

It's a huge victory for women, this was a David and Goliath fight all the way - it still is - but the fucking tragedy of it is that all they did was force the state to admit to their existing legal rights. That's it. That's all.

They have the right to get undressed without having to put up with a man who wants to be there with them regardless of how they feel. They have the right to meet other lesbians without men who want to use them in their lesbian fantasies and disrupt their groups.

They can meet other women and talk about issues such as life threatening and disabling illness that only affects women, without being blown apart by men who want to shout a lot of political crap at them about how women talking about their biology and claiming the reality of their health disaster being women only, invalidates them and <insert male rage, threats and awful behaviour here>. Groups have been destroyed that women needed, by men who didn't care about anything but controlling and using the word woman.

I could go on and on, about the woman who was multiply raped and so badly injured that she may never have children, by a man who was in her locked mental health ward having self IDd there, and was then put in a womens prison where he chalked up a few more women victims to entertain himself while awaiting trial.

About the women who lost all access to toilets, gyms, changing rooms, public spaces, because men didn't care if women had nothing and couldn't pee at all so long as THEY could be where they wanted. The women in tears being laughed at in a rape crisis service as they tried to explain the distress they felt at men in the groups and buildings, and told that the price of help was to pretend for a man. And subordinate themselves as they had to subordinate themselves to the man who abused them.

And a man dares to tell those women how very sad they've made him by managing to prove they have the right to say no?

Thank you for the proof, yet again, of WHY women need rock solid protections from men in law to be able to function in society and be permitted anything at all, even basic safety, never mind equality. And the reminder of why women should STILL be bloody raging that this was ever allowed never mind so enabled against them by agencies and services like the police and government who they should have been able to trust.

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:20

And women are still being forced to fight this with their hands tied behind their backs if they mention realities, facts and evidence that make men look bad such as the heavy intertwined sexual components of all this. Women are only allowed to battle at all if they engage in the pretence there's nothing more than innocent dysphoria at play. Even pronouns aren't fought as fiercely as that particular shield.

EasternStandard · 27/04/2025 09:32

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:15

Quoting this again as it is such a solid point, it was absolutely cynical, intentional, a hostile take over, an act of deliberate colonisation. Intended to be done quietly without public understanding to avoid women being protected or able to resist. And in the full belief that women's interests, privacy and even their safety was absolutely worthless, the only purpose they had was in how men could use them.

Women have been harmed by men doing this. It has taken YEARS to overturn this to stop the harm to women, while men threatened to rape them and kill them, doxxed them, blocked them from services, had them arrested, women have managed to fight through despite a profoundly misogynist state that would much have preferred to go on enabling men to harm them while women were gagged from resisting or complaining about it.

I have no sympathy to spare for sadness that the access to continuing this harm has finally been thwarted. Absolutely none. I could search through and find examples of the posts that made it very clear the person who wants sympathy and apology now for women having finally managed to get their existing bloody rights in law to work against men has been and is fully invested in this trampling of women and their rights in order to be able to use them for their own agenda.

It's a huge victory for women, this was a David and Goliath fight all the way - it still is - but the fucking tragedy of it is that all they did was force the state to admit to their existing legal rights. That's it. That's all.

They have the right to get undressed without having to put up with a man who wants to be there with them regardless of how they feel. They have the right to meet other lesbians without men who want to use them in their lesbian fantasies and disrupt their groups.

They can meet other women and talk about issues such as life threatening and disabling illness that only affects women, without being blown apart by men who want to shout a lot of political crap at them about how women talking about their biology and claiming the reality of their health disaster being women only, invalidates them and <insert male rage, threats and awful behaviour here>. Groups have been destroyed that women needed, by men who didn't care about anything but controlling and using the word woman.

I could go on and on, about the woman who was multiply raped and so badly injured that she may never have children, by a man who was in her locked mental health ward having self IDd there, and was then put in a womens prison where he chalked up a few more women victims to entertain himself while awaiting trial.

About the women who lost all access to toilets, gyms, changing rooms, public spaces, because men didn't care if women had nothing and couldn't pee at all so long as THEY could be where they wanted. The women in tears being laughed at in a rape crisis service as they tried to explain the distress they felt at men in the groups and buildings, and told that the price of help was to pretend for a man. And subordinate themselves as they had to subordinate themselves to the man who abused them.

And a man dares to tell those women how very sad they've made him by managing to prove they have the right to say no?

Thank you for the proof, yet again, of WHY women need rock solid protections from men in law to be able to function in society and be permitted anything at all, even basic safety, never mind equality. And the reminder of why women should STILL be bloody raging that this was ever allowed never mind so enabled against them by agencies and services like the police and government who they should have been able to trust.

Edited

@TheOtherRavenI agree with you. The response from men to no is telling. Including the fixation on a few successful women. It’s unsettling and threatening, reinforcing why we ask for single sex spaces.

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 09:35

GarlicSmile · 27/04/2025 02:35

I'm pretty sure you could legitimately have a group for:

a] Same-sex attracted women, including those attracted to both sexes;
b] Women who are exclusively attracted to women;
c] Only women who are attracted to both sexes;

d] Same-sex attracted men, including bisexual men;
e] Exclusively gay men;
f] Only bisexual men;

g] LGB of both sexes;
h] Exclusively same-sex attracted men and women;
i] Exclusively bisexual men and women;

j] Transbians and TW-attracted women, though you couldn't justify this on sex grounds and would have to be prepared for others to apply;
k] Transgay and TM-attracted men, same caveat;
l] All LGBT.

Not terribly restrictive, is it?

(edited to invent 'transgay' although I bet it's already a term)

Edited

What part of the Act are you relying on to say these sorts of associations would be allowed?

Lalgarh · 27/04/2025 09:37

R4 Broadcasting House going with the impact on UK hospitality industry who are claiming the EHRC ruling is confusing and a burden on small businesses

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 09:39

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 26/04/2025 20:37

"But now we are seeing a massive emotional outpouring over social media and at protests. And I think these people genuinely think that it works. Maybe they did just this to coerce getting what they wanted from others in the past."

The rage too is certainly helping to show why women need single sex spaces and provisions. I certainly don't want to encounter such manipulative, boundary-crossing, and unstable violent men in places where I least expect their presence.

To be frank, it is most often the so called 'allies' who are worst.

They seem to think they are defending these apparently fragile creatures who are " the nicest, kindest people in the world".

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 09:40

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:20

And women are still being forced to fight this with their hands tied behind their backs if they mention realities, facts and evidence that make men look bad such as the heavy intertwined sexual components of all this. Women are only allowed to battle at all if they engage in the pretence there's nothing more than innocent dysphoria at play. Even pronouns aren't fought as fiercely as that particular shield.

Absolutely...you can present all of the evidence requested, but it is completely ignored.

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 09:42

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 07:00

You'd think so, but in the legislation gay, bi and straight are listed as three separate sexual orientations.

I agree, according to the Act, lesbians and bisexual women do not share a sexual orientation and therefore do not share a protected characteristic.

Datun · 27/04/2025 09:42

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:15

Quoting this again as it is such a solid point, it was absolutely cynical, intentional, a hostile take over, an act of deliberate colonisation. Intended to be done quietly without public understanding to avoid women being protected or able to resist. And in the full belief that women's interests, privacy and even their safety was absolutely worthless, the only purpose they had was in how men could use them.

Women have been harmed by men doing this. It has taken YEARS to overturn this to stop the harm to women, while men threatened to rape them and kill them, doxxed them, blocked them from services, had them arrested, women have managed to fight through despite a profoundly misogynist state that would much have preferred to go on enabling men to harm them while women were gagged from resisting or complaining about it.

I have no sympathy to spare for sadness that the access to continuing this harm has finally been thwarted. Absolutely none. I could search through and find examples of the posts that made it very clear the person who wants sympathy and apology now for women having finally managed to get their existing bloody rights in law to work against men has been and is fully invested in this trampling of women and their rights in order to be able to use them for their own agenda.

It's a huge victory for women, this was a David and Goliath fight all the way - it still is - but the fucking tragedy of it is that all they did was force the state to admit to their existing legal rights. That's it. That's all.

They have the right to get undressed without having to put up with a man who wants to be there with them regardless of how they feel. They have the right to meet other lesbians without men who want to use them in their lesbian fantasies and disrupt their groups.

They can meet other women and talk about issues such as life threatening and disabling illness that only affects women, without being blown apart by men who want to shout a lot of political crap at them about how women talking about their biology and claiming the reality of their health disaster being women only, invalidates them and <insert male rage, threats and awful behaviour here>. Groups have been destroyed that women needed, by men who didn't care about anything but controlling and using the word woman.

I could go on and on, about the woman who was multiply raped and so badly injured that she may never have children, by a man who was in her locked mental health ward having self IDd there, and was then put in a womens prison where he chalked up a few more women victims to entertain himself while awaiting trial.

About the women who lost all access to toilets, gyms, changing rooms, public spaces, because men didn't care if women had nothing and couldn't pee at all so long as THEY could be where they wanted. The women in tears being laughed at in a rape crisis service as they tried to explain the distress they felt at men in the groups and buildings, and told that the price of help was to pretend for a man. And subordinate themselves as they had to subordinate themselves to the man who abused them.

And a man dares to tell those women how very sad they've made him by managing to prove they have the right to say no?

Thank you for the proof, yet again, of WHY women need rock solid protections from men in law to be able to function in society and be permitted anything at all, even basic safety, never mind equality. And the reminder of why women should STILL be bloody raging that this was ever allowed never mind so enabled against them by agencies and services like the police and government who they should have been able to trust.

Edited

All this. And you've got men claiming their entire lives are utterly over and they're crying themselves to sleep because they've got to find a fucking unisex toilet??!

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 09:43

I strongly suspect that there will be a concerted effort to launch some kind of legal challenge...which will create even more uncertainty for many months until the challenge is over-ruled or dismissed...... before sanity is finally restored and everyone can just get on with the new arrangements.

Best to avoid too much social media interaction in the interim.

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 09:45

NebulousCatWhistler · 27/04/2025 07:40

These are separate descriptions but not clearly distinct orientations, because sexual orientation is a continuum in a way that sex isn't. People can be more or less attracted to their own sex and the opposite sex; some people only to one sex, some people to both equally, some people to both but to one more than the other. Bisexuality (para c) overlaps with both (a) and (b).

During the AIDS crisis there were services and information specifically targeted at "men who have sex with men", i.e. gay and bisexual men. You could create a group for "women who have sex with women " or "women-attracted women" in the same way. And for lesbians who are only attracted to men. The EQA didn't and doesn't stop that. Groups divided by on sexual orientation might need to set their own exact boundary or might use self-id, depending on their purpose.

It's now clear that a group for bisexual women could use self-id for "bisexual" but not for "women". Women is "biological women".

Does this need to be clarified in the guidance?

This might be what was intended, but it doesn’t appear to be what the legislation does.

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 09:49

Let's say you set up a group for lesbian and bisexual women. The single sex part of that is clearly allowed which would mean that no men can make a claim for discrimination . This leaves heterosexual women as the only group that could claim discrimination if they claim that lesbian and bisexuality women do not share the same sexual orientation.

I don't know if there is existing case law about whether lesbian and bi woman share the same orientation but if not I think there could be a good legal argument that it is the same sex attraction part of bisexuality that gives rise to discrimination and therefore a bisexual can lawfully be included in a same sex attracted group.

If that argument failed then it may be necessary to admit heterosexual women but you still wouldn't need to include men

Theeyeballsinthesky · 27/04/2025 09:50

Lalgarh · 27/04/2025 09:37

R4 Broadcasting House going with the impact on UK hospitality industry who are claiming the EHRC ruling is confusing and a burden on small businesses

It’s not confusing but I think an awful lot of people with a great deal of experience in pretending the law is confusing are utilising all their contacts in media, government, the law to propagate the idea that it’s 1. Confusing and 2. Unworkable cos men who don’t like being told no will just ignore it

it’s neither of those things but just as a great deal of effort was spent trying to convince companies that self ID was law, a great deal of effort will be spent insisting it’s all to difficult and expensive

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 09:51

WandaSiri · 27/04/2025 08:35

We've been over this and the consensus is that yes you can because they share the PC of SO (same-sex attraction) and of Sex. The guidance says that you can restrict membership of an association to members who share (up to) two PCs. So any straights and any men could be excluded

Sex is a PC. So you can't have a women-only group, which is discrimination against men, unless the SSEs are engaged, ie because you have a good reason to make it single sex. There are different sexual orientations just like there are different sexes.

Edited

I am a lawyer, and I’m fairly confident your consensus is wrong. Unless there is a provision elsewhere in the Act that I’ve missed.

GailBlancheViola · 27/04/2025 09:52

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:15

Quoting this again as it is such a solid point, it was absolutely cynical, intentional, a hostile take over, an act of deliberate colonisation. Intended to be done quietly without public understanding to avoid women being protected or able to resist. And in the full belief that women's interests, privacy and even their safety was absolutely worthless, the only purpose they had was in how men could use them.

Women have been harmed by men doing this. It has taken YEARS to overturn this to stop the harm to women, while men threatened to rape them and kill them, doxxed them, blocked them from services, had them arrested, women have managed to fight through despite a profoundly misogynist state that would much have preferred to go on enabling men to harm them while women were gagged from resisting or complaining about it.

I have no sympathy to spare for sadness that the access to continuing this harm has finally been thwarted. Absolutely none. I could search through and find examples of the posts that made it very clear the person who wants sympathy and apology now for women having finally managed to get their existing bloody rights in law to work against men has been and is fully invested in this trampling of women and their rights in order to be able to use them for their own agenda.

It's a huge victory for women, this was a David and Goliath fight all the way - it still is - but the fucking tragedy of it is that all they did was force the state to admit to their existing legal rights. That's it. That's all.

They have the right to get undressed without having to put up with a man who wants to be there with them regardless of how they feel. They have the right to meet other lesbians without men who want to use them in their lesbian fantasies and disrupt their groups.

They can meet other women and talk about issues such as life threatening and disabling illness that only affects women, without being blown apart by men who want to shout a lot of political crap at them about how women talking about their biology and claiming the reality of their health disaster being women only, invalidates them and <insert male rage, threats and awful behaviour here>. Groups have been destroyed that women needed, by men who didn't care about anything but controlling and using the word woman.

I could go on and on, about the woman who was multiply raped and so badly injured that she may never have children, by a man who was in her locked mental health ward having self IDd there, and was then put in a womens prison where he chalked up a few more women victims to entertain himself while awaiting trial.

About the women who lost all access to toilets, gyms, changing rooms, public spaces, because men didn't care if women had nothing and couldn't pee at all so long as THEY could be where they wanted. The women in tears being laughed at in a rape crisis service as they tried to explain the distress they felt at men in the groups and buildings, and told that the price of help was to pretend for a man. And subordinate themselves as they had to subordinate themselves to the man who abused them.

And a man dares to tell those women how very sad they've made him by managing to prove they have the right to say no?

Thank you for the proof, yet again, of WHY women need rock solid protections from men in law to be able to function in society and be permitted anything at all, even basic safety, never mind equality. And the reminder of why women should STILL be bloody raging that this was ever allowed never mind so enabled against them by agencies and services like the police and government who they should have been able to trust.

Edited

Excellent post.

SunnieShine · 27/04/2025 09:53

Fatlittlefruits · 25/04/2025 23:43

There will be an increasing trend towards gender neutral toilets. I'm absolutely fine with this and will be pushing for this change at my workplace.

"Mixed sex" toilets.

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 09:54

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 09:42

I agree, according to the Act, lesbians and bisexual women do not share a sexual orientation and therefore do not share a protected characteristic.

Yes, but they do share the characteristic of being women. Which allows the exclusion of all men.

For the next step (the exclusion of exclusively heterosexual women) it doesn’t matter that lesbian and bi are not the same sexual orientation. It matters that the entire group of people being excluded share the same sexual orientation (opposite sex attracted) AND that that exclusion is a proportionate means of obtaining a legitimate aim.

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 09:56

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 09:54

Yes, but they do share the characteristic of being women. Which allows the exclusion of all men.

For the next step (the exclusion of exclusively heterosexual women) it doesn’t matter that lesbian and bi are not the same sexual orientation. It matters that the entire group of people being excluded share the same sexual orientation (opposite sex attracted) AND that that exclusion is a proportionate means of obtaining a legitimate aim.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to me?

Hoydenish · 27/04/2025 09:56

A propos of nothing, I have a teeny bit of schadenfreude at the Scottish Government and Nicola Sturgeon who were the architects not only of their own downfall but of collapsing the house of cards. I know it took many years from deciding that a board made up of 50/50 men and men who tell us they are women was perfectly balanced male to female but yeah, here we are, with an astonishing cascade of unintended consequences.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 09:56

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 09:54

Yes, but they do share the characteristic of being women. Which allows the exclusion of all men.

For the next step (the exclusion of exclusively heterosexual women) it doesn’t matter that lesbian and bi are not the same sexual orientation. It matters that the entire group of people being excluded share the same sexual orientation (opposite sex attracted) AND that that exclusion is a proportionate means of obtaining a legitimate aim.

You are not excluding all women who are opposite sex attracted though.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 09:58

That said, I cannot imagine for a single second that straight women would challenge the existence of such a group, and TQ+ people would probably struggle to demonstrate that they had the legal standing (as with Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance). It's an expensive way to be told to mind your own fucking business but the TQ+ might just be stupid enough to attempt it twice.

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 09:58

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 09:56

You are not excluding all women who are opposite sex attracted though.

No, the only people excluded are men and women who are not same sex attracted.
Doesn’t that work?

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 10:00

Theeyeballsinthesky · 27/04/2025 09:50

It’s not confusing but I think an awful lot of people with a great deal of experience in pretending the law is confusing are utilising all their contacts in media, government, the law to propagate the idea that it’s 1. Confusing and 2. Unworkable cos men who don’t like being told no will just ignore it

it’s neither of those things but just as a great deal of effort was spent trying to convince companies that self ID was law, a great deal of effort will be spent insisting it’s all to difficult and expensive

I reckon we've got about another 10 months of meltdown and wilful misrepresentation before clarity is finally restored. It is going to take some time for everything to settle into its new place.........a lot of people have invested a lot of emotional energy in propping up this construct and trying to deter challanges to it. The most concerning thing is people in the highest places and those most influential have been captured by it........and many who have trans identifying children and so may have been complicit, won't now want to suggest to them that, in fact, there are limits and boundaries.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.