Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
Limehawkmoth · 15/05/2025 13:29

Igneococcus · 15/05/2025 06:54

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.

Blimey, that is quite some condescencion on show here.

lost me with “cis”…clewrly signed up to gender therory

then quoting someone who says “I genuinely believe there’s misunderstanding from a few of the much older cis community about what it means to be trans” and thinks that is a worthwhile debating point versus the ageism it actually is

what you had, if this event took place in real world which I have doubts on, is an agressive man. Who decided to behave aggressively with someone of opposite sex. And appears not to think women should have short hair and wear trousers. Generally I’d call that a misogynistic bloke. And agressive. And I’m hear to announce the world is full of twats like him. Or he is someone who is perhaps suffering from some sort of mental illness- again the world is surprisingly full of people who sadly have lost social inhibition as part of a mental illness or beginnings of cognitive decline.

the individual impacted did the right thing. The incident was dealt with without escalation. It could have happened 30 or 50 years ago, or in 30 or 50 years time. It means nothing about the SC decison impacting women who don’t do odddles of feminine presentation. There have always been twats. There always will be.

a few twats don’t make a crisis of safety as represcussion of a SC clarification on the law

Brefugee · 15/05/2025 13:29

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.

no.
The women in this thread instantly identified the correct headline: man is agressive to woman

A man was agressive towards a woman
Other women checked on her and supported her
A woman connected to the agressive man removed him from the scene

Women. Standing up for other women. Which is what we do. (and getting to the crux of overly long scolding posts put here to garner screenshots of the evil vipers putting the boot in - although obvs, we're ladies and all wear a nice court shoe)

As an aside: I'm an ancient old tattooed biddy who wears baggy black clothes, docs and has very short hair. I am often to be seen at heavy metal gigs and football matches. Nobody has ever thought i was a bloke. Even though when drunk, in dim light, i am practically indistinguishable from everyone else there.

AirborneElephant · 15/05/2025 13:35

Yeah, that happened 🙄

I’ve had short hair for years, it has never happened to me. My cousin is a butch lesbian, it has never happened to her. This is a non-issue, and in any case occasional mistakes about someone’s sex or aggressive men policing the ladies is not a reason to take away safe spaces.

TRAs seem to be really doubling down on the loo thing. It’s the most trivial of the issues with gender ideology and yet it seems to be all they can talk about.

ThatCyanCat · 15/05/2025 13:40

TRAs seem to be really doubling down on the loo thing. It’s the most trivial of the issues with gender ideology and yet it seems to be all they can talk about.

My kids like to yell, "Fart, poo, bum, toilet!" when they're trying to lower the tone and stop the grownups from looking at serious stuff.

JudgeJ · 15/05/2025 13:48

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...

I do hope there was a bath in the bathroom!

Skandar · 15/05/2025 13:48

Out of curiosity, can anyone link to the original story from 'Caz' that she has made public? Google is only bringing me up versions that other people have posted but I can't find the original for some reason, despite her being 'very vocal online' about the incident.

ArabellaScott · 15/05/2025 13:49

I think Bathroom Aggression might be a good name for a band.

EmpressaurusKitty · 15/05/2025 13:49

Skandar · 15/05/2025 13:48

Out of curiosity, can anyone link to the original story from 'Caz' that she has made public? Google is only bringing me up versions that other people have posted but I can't find the original for some reason, despite her being 'very vocal online' about the incident.

There’s a link to Caz’s public FB page upthread somewhere.

Birdsinginginthetrees · 15/05/2025 13:53

Yeah, you lost me at ‘cis’. A completely meaningless term really. The picture looks like a woman to me 🤷‍♀️

Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 13:58

I mean, to be honest the OP lost me at "SC-fuelled". Hyperbole much?

DeanElderberry · 15/05/2025 14:02

PriOn1 · 15/05/2025 13:27

Just looking back through the thread and coming to the speculation that we ancients misunderstand what it means to be trans (and thus are scared).

I suspect my daughter thinks that about me. I am truly sad to think she is naive and misguided.

As far as I can see, “what it means to be trans” includes a number of different groups of people. These include (but are not limited to):

  1. Young butch lesbians who have been made so uncomfortable about being lesbian that they have been convinced that they would be happier if they could be male. Nobody told them they couldn’t be male, so they embarked on a series of harmful medical interventions, including mastectomy, testosterone supplementation and (worst) the removal of skin from part of their body, in order to create a non-functioning, unrealistic structure in the area where men have a penis. What it means for these young women, as far as I can see, is likely to be short-term euphoria, followed by a long, slow, painful realization that changing sex was never possible and they have damaged their bodies in pursuit of an impossibility.

I realize my daughter and other activists do not want to recognize this as possible as it’s so horrific, but only time will tell whether I am correct as this mass experiment on young lesbians is irreversible and virtually untested.

  1. Young gay men. See above. Perhaps this model is a little better tested than the above version, but I suspect it should have been rarely applied and has been used on many young men who could have been happy as they were, with help to accept themselves.

  2. Older gay men who have allowed themselves to fall into a false fantasy, where attractive young military men will desire and ravish them. As a result, these men might have orchiectomy to facilitate that potential sexual encounter, at which point they will realize their error as they have now removed their ability to feel sexual arousal, having had the essential organs to achieve this removed. They will then take their revenge on women because they cannot deflect their anger towards themselves or the doctors that treated them.

  3. Fetishistic men who are aroused by cross dressing and often have additional paraphilias which lead them to be more likely to enjoy overstepping boundaries, entering women’s spaces, flashing and worse.

Now I admit, the last group scares me, in a direct way. This is not remotely irrational as these are perverted men who have been given the go-ahead by other perverted men and their ignorant and naive supporters to enter women’s spaces at will. This is not progress.

I realize I have quite a negative view of the trans experience, but I suspect most people who claim a trans identity fall into one of these groups. Obviously transactivists are going to regard what I just wrote as bigotry, but sadly, I think they’re likely wrong and naive and I’m right, even though I’d rather not be, as this whole thing has done so much damage to individuals and society.

I'd add what seems to be a surprisingly large group of heterosexual men with controlling personalities who cannot stand the idea that women can exist, and worse, interact, in places where they are not there to observe and supervise. Permanently 4 years old and furious at Mummy for locking the loo door. I'm not sure why dressing up as Mummy is part of the package but it seems to be.

Ohfuckrucksack · 15/05/2025 14:04

Maaaaaate.

Give it a rest.

ClawsandEffect · 15/05/2025 14:05

Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 10:59

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.

Clearly not this one. Femme/feminine women maybe.

Sapana · 15/05/2025 14:12

Let's say for the sake of argument this happened as described.

I wonder how many women up and down the country were intimidated and threatened by men today.

Doubt we'll ever hear about most of them. Not news or interesting to anyone, is it.

There's so much that's off about the original post but just to start - Caz being "very very" successful at her job does not really matter and I don't care 2) male energy wtf 3) could this whole pile of crap be more patronising? I'm in my thirties and I think she's waffling shite for much of this extremely detailed and fairly stream-of-consciousness story.

Also

Now, read that first sentence again before proceeding.

No.

Datun · 15/05/2025 14:16

BobbyBiscuits · 15/05/2025 11:49

All I take from this is that the man who challenged her was a rude twat with dreadful eyesight. The woman concerned says she has very male 'energy' and isn't particularly insulted at being called a man. I don't know what the purpose of the story could be, other than to try and show that women suffer at the hands of idiot men regardless of their appearance or 'gender identity'.

Me neither. It's a non-story.

'Man got aggressive.'

As an example of why we don't want men in our toilets, it couldn't be clearer tho.

I've come to the conclusion that because TRAs can't form a coherent, logical argument, they've decided that an incoherent, illogical argument is the next best thing.

I'd recommend they crack on, but it seems they're unstoppable anyway!

pearandchocolate · 15/05/2025 14:17

Wonderwhynosunshine · 15/05/2025 12:48

I think what Caz is getting at here is that the ruling has made it deemed okay to challenge people who you might assume are trans. This does open up ‘butch’ women to scrutiny that’s really unpleasant. Incidentally it also means that a woman can be strip searched by a male officer if he thinks she might be trans which I think most women would probably find very distressing; I certainly would. Male violence and aggression towards women is the root of the problem, but the SC ruling has opened up both trans and masculine-presenting women to scrutiny and said aggression, which they really don’t need. Nobody really thought in advance about the risk of masculine presenting women being collateral damage, I presume.

I think what Caz is getting at here is that the ruling has made it deemed okay to challenge people who you might assume are trans.

If he challenged her because he thought she was a transman, why only after the ruling? The ruling says transmen are women and would surely make anyone thought to be a transman less likely to be challenged now, not more

If he challenged her because he thought she was a transwoman, why would he challenge her at all? She looks lightly masculine-presenting but clearly female - almost the opposite of someone most likely to be mistaken for a transwoman.

In reality a butch woman is most likely to be challenged occasionally if someone thinks she is an ordinary man (possibly just from the back if she has short hair), nothing to do with being trans or not, and not something that's only started happening since the SC ruling.

Datun · 15/05/2025 14:19

pearandchocolate · 15/05/2025 14:17

I think what Caz is getting at here is that the ruling has made it deemed okay to challenge people who you might assume are trans.

If he challenged her because he thought she was a transman, why only after the ruling? The ruling says transmen are women and would surely make anyone thought to be a transman less likely to be challenged now, not more

If he challenged her because he thought she was a transwoman, why would he challenge her at all? She looks lightly masculine-presenting but clearly female - almost the opposite of someone most likely to be mistaken for a transwoman.

In reality a butch woman is most likely to be challenged occasionally if someone thinks she is an ordinary man (possibly just from the back if she has short hair), nothing to do with being trans or not, and not something that's only started happening since the SC ruling.

Edited

Quite. It would appear to have nothing to do with being trans.

Datun · 15/05/2025 14:20

What's the OP's solution?

Let predatory men into women's spaces so women with short hair don't get tapped on the shoulder by stupid men?

ArabellaScott · 15/05/2025 14:21

EmpressaurusKitty · 15/05/2025 13:49

There’s a link to Caz’s public FB page upthread somewhere.

Found it. Not found the story about Bathroom Aggression, but there is a post asking whether sound frequencies kill cancer.

Datun · 15/05/2025 14:22

We soo need more emojis

Frazzled83 · 15/05/2025 14:24

It’s really interesting reading these responses to an article that I think was compassionate and measured. I didn’t see any ageism there. I’m only in my 40s and I’m WELL aware I’m not as in sync with youth culture because I’m getting to be a bit of an old fart. The same as I realise me and my octogenarian relatives are probably not going to see eye to eye on somethings. That’s not me being ageist, that’s an acknowledgement of how culture and ideas change over time.

I’m definitely not a trans activist and I think having clarity in law about the definition of a woman is helpful. I think the bit people seem to have forgotten is that rights are not pie and it’s not ‘you’ have them or ‘we’ have them. Protecting natal born women’s rights doesn’t make being trans any less of a protected characteristic. Sure if Gary the builder buys a frock on and calls himself Sally, I don’t want to be in the toilet with him. But that’s not a trans woman. That’s Gary being a creepy dude. I think things had gone too far in terms of anyone can self identify as a woman and automatically have access to single sex spaces and we’ve seen a very small number of cases where men have exploited that. Men. Not trans women. Men. But I also know I’d do anything I could to protect a trans woman trying to have a wee in peace and being set upon by frothing TERFs. The reality is, we need more unisex spaces so people can have a choice. I also think the toilet fascination is weird. I don’t know what’s happening in the toilets you’re all frequenting, but I’m popping into a cubicle, locking the door and having a wee. I’m certainly not undressing or getting my bits out by the sinks. A busy public loo is a low risk environment. Rape centres, prisons, hospitals - all much more valid arguments and require careful thought, probably on a case by case basis. The ruling just means nobody has an automatic right to access single sex spaces, it’s not a call to arms to be a prick for the sake of it.

DeanElderberry · 15/05/2025 14:26

Why would anyone write: Now, read that first sentence again before proceeding.

Or indeed its synonym: I express myself so badly that you'll have forgotten what I wrote within seconds of reading it.

?

I noted one of those long dashes that someone recently said are a tell of AI assistance.

Brefugee · 15/05/2025 14:27

I didn’t see any ageism there. I’m only in my 40s

give it a decade @Frazzled83 The ageism was very clear.
reading the rest of your post: either you haven't understood the SC statement and the EA 2010 or you don't want to understand it.

Feel free to campaign for 3rd spaces for trans people. But until they have them everywhere, where they aren't available, they use the correct toilet for their sex.

WithSilverBells · 15/05/2025 14:32

ThatCyanCat · 15/05/2025 12:46

You think women should be ok being harassed and verbally aggressed when out and about?

I just can't even with the level of dishonesty and misrepresentation (some might even say Blatant Lie if they weren't trying to #bekind) that it takes to suggest that this is what we're saying. And when it comes from someone who, one assumes, believes that the answer to women being harassed is to allow self selecting men into their safe spaces...well, it's not cognitive dissonance as much as a total head transplant.

It's not working. Try honesty, decency and a little actual respect for the rights of women and you may get somewhere. This kind of dishonest hyperbole isn't going to wash any more. Truth is that it never did but sheer intimidation kept it rolling.

well, it's not cognitive dissonance as much as a total head transplant.

😂😂😂

PriOn1 · 15/05/2025 14:33

DeanElderberry · 15/05/2025 14:02

I'd add what seems to be a surprisingly large group of heterosexual men with controlling personalities who cannot stand the idea that women can exist, and worse, interact, in places where they are not there to observe and supervise. Permanently 4 years old and furious at Mummy for locking the loo door. I'm not sure why dressing up as Mummy is part of the package but it seems to be.

Ah. I would probably have placed them in category 4, but you may be correct that they warrant their own.

Swipe left for the next trending thread