Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

SC-Fuelled Bathroom Aggression

853 replies

BisiBodi · 15/05/2025 06:38

Firstly, this thread is for open discussion on a specific topic, stated at the end. It is not a thread that sits in judgement, or calls for people to sit in judgement, of the Supreme Court finding.

Now, read that first sentence again before proceeding.

So, I am posting this with the full permission of the individual concerned, whose photograph - again posted with their permission - is on the thread. The reason for that photograph will become evident soon.

Caz is a cis woman and a very, very successful music producer and DJ in London. She has recently been very vocal online about a recent incident that was almost certainly created as a result of the SC ruling and the subsequent interpretation by certain members of society. Here is her original post:

"This photo of me was taken a few days ago. This is what I look like, not that it matters, but to set the scene…
I was at the Festival Hall. Toilets on either side of two lifts - men’s on one side, women’s on the other. I was in the queue for the women’s. Men were queueing across from me.
I was facing into the bathroom, so from behind, you couldn’t see my face. I was just standing there, minding my business, when I heard someone shout,
“The men’s toilets are over here!”
I ignored it at first thinking someone was letting their mate know. But he kept shouting it "The men's toilet are this side!". Then I felt a tap on my shoulder, (meaning he came into the corridor of the women's toilets), he poked me and said
“Do you realise this is the women’s toilet?!”
Up to that point, he hadn’t seen my face. So what was he judging me on? My haircut? My hoodie?
Also, I was surrounded by women. It was pretty obvious I knew which toilet it was.
His energy was aggressive. I was shocked. I looked him straight in the face and asked: “What sex do you think I am?” Affronted he said: “I don’t know!”
Here’s where I wish I’d said, “If you don’t know, then shut the f**k up!”
But instead, I said: “Would you like to see my tits?”
I started unzipping my hoodie. He panicked: “No no no, don’t do that!”
His wife came out of the loo and saw what was going down and said with urgency, “Let’s go now!.”
She rushed him away before all the ladies around me could properly react. They were horrified by what they saw. One lovely lady said to me, "I can’t believe what I just saw!" Another one said, “I am so, so sorry you had to experience that. I held back from speaking up till it was too late because when he came and touched you, I thought he must have known you.” Another woman said, "You are welcome here!" and yet another said, "You must report him and get him kicked out!" I stood there, shocked, and unfortunately didn’t react quickly enough.
What’s interesting is that he wasn’t a staff member. He was just a random member of the public.
Also, my attire was more on the masculine side. So if he thought I was a trans woman, why would I be dressing like a man? If he thought I was a trans man, then under the new rules, I was in the right toilet!
His policing was based on my hair? My clothes? Maybe I had cancer? Or maybe I just like my hair that way. What makes him think any of that gives him the right to behave like that?!
It is fair to say also that I could have been a butch trans women but that is the whole point, you can't judge from a hair cut several meters away and its not anyone's place to.
For the record, I’m not offended by being thought to be a man. I have a strong male energy, (female too sometimes!). However I often feel if I could press a button and turn into a man I might, I don’t feel like I’ve earned the right to call myself trans, given the immense things people go through to be right in their body… but in spirit perhaps I am. Asides this I am a 100% biological born unchanged female.
What was offensive was his assumption that this kind of behaviour is OK.
This is what these new laws and rules are doing — they’re not making it safer for everyone. They’re fuelling public entitlement and policing of gender expression.
Afterwards, I tried to find them. I thought maybe it would help to have a conversation. To understand. Did he think he was protecting his wife? What made him do that?
I’ve been meaning to speak out on this issue for a while. But I’ve had a lot going on, it’s been a difficult time and I haven’t felt I had the head space.
In a strange way, I’m grateful for this moment. It gave me the push I needed to finally say something.
I genuinely believe there’s misunderstanding from a few of the much older cis community about what it means to be trans. I mean this compassionately, It is just something they do not understand and it frightens them. I wish I’d got to talk to that guy… open conversations are needed to understand what fears are fuelling their prejudice."

Again, the purpose of this thread is not to pass judgement on whether the SC ruling was right or wrong, everybody has their own opinions on that, but rather to open a dialogue on - and raise awareness of - the effect that that ruling is having on the small but disproportionately loud and aggressive members of society, and the fear being generated as a result.

Speaking personally, I am hearing many reports of bathroom aggression - perpetrated by both men and women - against anyone who doesn't 'look right', regardless of the facts or a sense of common respect for others.
Now that the ruling has passed, I think that as women the best we can do here - the absolute bare minimum if we want to consider ourselves reasonable, respectful members of society - is to be aware that this kind of horror does happen and is happening, and to call out that bullshit if we encounter it.

I'd be interested in your thoughts...

SC-Fuelled Bathroom Aggression
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 10:47

But let's all agree that men can be women now because of an anecdote posted on a board on MN about someone's female pal having short hair.

😆That just about sums it up, @terryleather

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 10:47

My thought is that the ruling has given an excuse to those who want to be aggressive about the policing of sex and gender. No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it and given them a justification for publicly exposing their bigotry.

SinKlaire · 15/05/2025 10:50

terryleather · 15/05/2025 10:44

Same.

But let's all agree that men can be women now because of an anecdote posted on a board on MN about someone's female pal having short hair.

Haha, the OP is not very bright is he?

sanluca · 15/05/2025 10:50

Politely, @BisiBodi, what response are you looking for?
That everyone should ignore the law because a man was aggressive to a woman?
That because a man was agressive to a woman, women should never have the right to single sex spaces?
That even though legally service providers are allowed to segregate on sex, because men are agressive they should never enforce this?

Would you have the same opinion if this wasn't a toilet queue but someone being challenged in a changing room? Or what if it actually was a man that was challenged?

I don't understand these kind of threads that are designed to tell women that even though they have the law of their side, they still shouldn't kick up a fuss and if someone does so and is wrong, it is still womens fault for someone being wrong but it is never the fault of the people that are breaking the law.

LesserCelandine · 15/05/2025 10:50

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 10:47

My thought is that the ruling has given an excuse to those who want to be aggressive about the policing of sex and gender. No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it and given them a justification for publicly exposing their bigotry.

As opposed to men aggressively invading women’s spaces you mean?

aylis · 15/05/2025 10:54

The picture in the OP didn't load for me at first. The only people who would mistake the person in the photo for a man is people who adhere to gender stereotypes so strongly that they can't compute a woman having short hair. Still pictures can be more deceptive than someone in motion as they can be posed and filtered and still nobody would think that was a male person.

The Supreme Court ruling and women having rights are not the problem here. Trying to make it the problem is the darkest, most outstandingly transparent misogyny that it can only originate with patriarchal ideas.

Raindropsandroses9 · 15/05/2025 10:56

Igneococcus · 15/05/2025 07:09

Ha, or like dd's friend who was disappointed I didn't react to her (clip on) safety pins in nose, ear and lips. Mate, when I was your age safety pins in my friends' faces were real and only very half-heartedly sterilized before being pushed through the skin.

It can be frustrating when people put ignorance in understanding the modern day world is down to age. My friends DH in his 60s is involved in IT & AI training at work. I don't know his exact title but that's part of his job.I doubt a discussion with a member of the trans community would challenge his intellectual understanding of differences in sex and gender 🙄

CactusSammy · 15/05/2025 10:56

I'm really not convinced the man thought Caz was a trans woman.

More like he thought she looked like a lesbian, and he didn't like that, so thought he'd be a twat to her.

Just a man bring a complete aggressive bellend to a woman. No change there, then.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 15/05/2025 10:57

BisiBodi · 15/05/2025 08:46

Fair points, and obviously this was not my experience and I only have the details Caz has made public to go on.

As to the offer to bear all, my assumption - and it is just an assumption - is she might have been so shocked by the encounter that a streak of angry defiance kicked in and she made a suggestion that - in the cold light of calm - would never have been made.

But if we now live in this brave new world where ones gender is determined by appearance, why was she remotely surprised that someone thought she was male because of her short hair?

Also, when I was young and skinny and had short hair I was often mistaken for a boy from behind. Did I wilt from this literal violence? No. I said 'actually I'm a girl' and went on with my day.

- and no one died.

Edit for typo/ clarity.

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 15/05/2025 10:57

This is what worries me about Reform gaining traction politically. Directly bigots get the confidence through a legal ruling then more and more people start saying the stuff they were thinking out loud.

I think you look like a woman and I am and will not be policing the toilet. I’m sorry that happened.

Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 10:59

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 10:47

My thought is that the ruling has given an excuse to those who want to be aggressive about the policing of sex and gender. No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it and given them a justification for publicly exposing their bigotry.

No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it

I agree with this part of your post, although not the rest of it.
"Be kind" essentially means "pretend and don't make a fuss".
The ruling has negated the need for pretense and that is a positive thing for women.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 15/05/2025 11:00

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 10:47

My thought is that the ruling has given an excuse to those who want to be aggressive about the policing of sex and gender. No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it and given them a justification for publicly exposing their bigotry.

Women have had enough of "be kind" because we have always been the givers of kindness and never the recipients of it.

All the ruling has legitimised is the fact that we exist and have rights too, and trans people are going to have to accept that.

BlokalShopForBlokalPeople · 15/05/2025 11:05

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 10:47

My thought is that the ruling has given an excuse to those who want to be aggressive about the policing of sex and gender. No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it and given them a justification for publicly exposing their bigotry.

Before the ruling the TRA line was..

"butch lesbians are routinely harassed in women's spaces"

and that has now morphed into

"because of the ruling butch lesbians are starting to be harassed in womens spaces"

It's kind of funny because it's so obvious & predicable.

ThatCyanCat · 15/05/2025 11:06

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 10:47

My thought is that the ruling has given an excuse to those who want to be aggressive about the policing of sex and gender. No more need to 'be kind' because the ruling has negated the need for it and given them a justification for publicly exposing their bigotry.

Whereas the trans lobby gave full freedom to those who wanted to be aggressive about transgressing women's rights and boundaries and getting access to them in their protected spaces, and publicly exposing their misogyny.

"Be kind" was only ever used in one direction, to coerce women into accepting this mass gaslighting and abuse and be happy about it.

FebruaryFever · 15/05/2025 11:09

That’s an appalling thing to happen. NAMALT.

I don’t know a single woman in real-life that would approve of some angry man jumping in to ‘protect’ them like they were their property. The type of man that would do this is a meat-head. Angry. Aggressive. I feel for his wife.

But please, please stop implying that women are to blame for bringing this upon themselves by asking that our single-sex spaces are defined as single-sex - which they are supposed to have been all along - out of necessity. It reminds me of someone saying ‘see what you’ve done now bitch?’

I’m sorry this very obvious-looking woman encountered this idiot and am glad she got support from the other women in the queue - I’d have done the same. And even if it had been a transwoman in the queue I would not support such aggression and would have done what I could to defuse the situation. Unfortunately having lived with a violent man I’m used to doing this.

pearandchocolate · 15/05/2025 11:09

These supposed gotchas are very revealing. Someone saying that the SC ruling makes butch lesbians more likely to be challenged is admitting they think that before it no one even slightly masculine-presenting could be challenged in a women's toilet.

But if women's spaces were supposed to be this safe refuge for vulnerable trans women, then surely most masculine-presenting people should always have been being challenged, even before the ruling?

And if women's spaces were still supposed to be safe for women in general, with only a tiny number of vulnerable trans women coming in, then again surely most masculine-presenting people should always have been being challenged, even before the ruling?

I think the people who promote these stories blaming the SC ruling are revealing that they know perfectly well the previous situation made "women"'s spaces effectively fully mixed sex, so all that stuff about how women's rights and safety would not be affected by "being kind" to a tiny number of vulnerable tw was rubbish from the start - they clearly didn't even believe it themselves.

KT1113 · 15/05/2025 11:11

OP I don't know why you bothered, this thread is full of people who aren't interested in the other side of any coin. A bad experience for this particular woman isn't relevant to them, because it wouldn't happen to them. Although being attacked by someone pretending to be trans to access women also hasn't happened to them, but is of grave concern.

monkeyspaw · 15/05/2025 11:12

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 15/05/2025 10:57

This is what worries me about Reform gaining traction politically. Directly bigots get the confidence through a legal ruling then more and more people start saying the stuff they were thinking out loud.

I think you look like a woman and I am and will not be policing the toilet. I’m sorry that happened.

Did you...actually mean to write that?
"More and more people being allowed to express the thoughts that were suppressed by force, because they are now legally allowed to, is wrong, because they should know better than to speak "wrongthink" out loud."
Is your last name Stalin? Zedong?
Bet you are policing toilets - for wrongthink.

CassOle · 15/05/2025 11:13

'... the thread has done what it was intended to do.'

Anyone who has been on here for any length of time will have seen sentences similar to the one above from ploppers/scolders many times before. It is so tiresome. I guess the author gets OTRSOH brownie points or something, but they persuade no one here of anything at all, and reality keeps trudging on, so mammals still can't change sex.

BedlingtonLover · 15/05/2025 11:14

I know several people with blue badges who have been aggressively harassed because people don’t believe they’re disabled/disabled enough. Does that mean we should remove blue badges from all? It would stop the harassment, right?

Hwi · 15/05/2025 11:14

She should have told them to FO - she is looking like a typical butch lesbian. 100% female, but butch I would say.

yeesh · 15/05/2025 11:15

If you think this wouldn’t have happened before the ruling you are delusional

ThatCyanCat · 15/05/2025 11:15

KT1113 · 15/05/2025 11:11

OP I don't know why you bothered, this thread is full of people who aren't interested in the other side of any coin. A bad experience for this particular woman isn't relevant to them, because it wouldn't happen to them. Although being attacked by someone pretending to be trans to access women also hasn't happened to them, but is of grave concern.

You think sexual assaults, covert recordings, intimidation, trauma and schoolgirls getting UTIs from holding their urine all day are acceptable prices to pay for men being able to do whatever they want if it fits their self image. We think the vanishingly rare occasion when a woman with a masculine appearance is challenged (and usually quickly resolved) is acceptable to prevent the other crimes and abuses from happening. You chose your priority and we chose ours.

And yes, things do happen much less when they are illegal and socially unacceptable.

ANewCreation · 15/05/2025 11:16

Funny how Caz confidently assumes she knows the 'Gender' and Sex of absolutely everyone else in her tale...

terryleather · 15/05/2025 11:16

KT1113 · 15/05/2025 11:11

OP I don't know why you bothered, this thread is full of people who aren't interested in the other side of any coin. A bad experience for this particular woman isn't relevant to them, because it wouldn't happen to them. Although being attacked by someone pretending to be trans to access women also hasn't happened to them, but is of grave concern.

I don't know why the OP bothered either.

Women are not responsible for what men do and men still can't be women.

Swipe left for the next trending thread