Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/05/2025 22:28

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:17

You see, you say, ‘It's not based on appearance. It's based on facts.’

I say, on a day to day basis, it’s absolutely based on appearance. How on earth, if not appearance, do we judge whether someone should be in our space or not? If someone ‘passes’ and decides to ignore the law, how do we know? We don’t.
And if someone doesn’t ‘pass’ but is actually female, what then?

You say, ‘Some men may pass as women so that means .....?????’
To finish your sentence (because you asked me to): ‘Some men may pass as women so if they’re in a female only space, how do we know?’

My argument (and it’s not really an argument as such) is simply that we all, inevitably, judge whether or not someone should be in a female only space according to how they look and that that is not ever going to be 100% accurate.

So what if some do judge on the basis of how people look? What does that mean for society? You keep repeating this and you've been heard. But you're being asked what does that mean? Because some men may pass, women and girls may not have single sex spaces?

You've repeatedly failed to explain what the implications of your point are which is why posters (including me) assume that it's just another transactivist trope designed to gaslight women.

It's been repeatedly pointed out on this thread that society operates on the basis of people following the law and the social contract - the unwritten "rules" that dictate respect for others even if you don't follow their beliefs. Does your belief that we judge people on the basis of their looks mean you think these "rules" no longer apply? That it's OK to break the law as clarified by the SC?

Or are you arguing something else?

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:29

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:27

I’m expressing an opinion. I am allowed to do that. What of it?

Nobody is denying you your right to express an opinion. It's just you've been talking for hours and haven't actually expressed a coherent one.

Yes, it's possible that in exceptionally rare cases someone may get away with breaking the law. And?

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 22:29

Is your point that they will just keep coming in?

Yes. They probably will until someone can act in a way that removes them (whether it is a work situation, a security person, the police or something ).

No law exists that is not broken. Laws will not 100% prevent male people from entering female single sex spaces. It is unreasonable to think that it will be 100% preventative.

Hence why women and girls will continue to be asked if a woman or girl is unsure. It always was the first available method of establishing whether someone should be there or not.

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 22:31

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:27

I’m expressing an opinion. I am allowed to do that. What of it?

Of course you are.

we are asking you for clarification of your opinion. We are allowed to do that too. What of it?

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:32

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:28

What’s yours?

That we correctly sex people almost 100% of the time, and we realise it's possible that in rare cases someone may break the law undetected, and that doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist or that there's anything wrong with it.

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 22:35

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:25

WHAT is your problem? I’m not trying to weaken or undermine anything. I’m on a public forum saying what I think. If you don’t like it, so bloody what?

Oh. Ok. Great. We understand your point. You have been heard.

mrshoho · 16/05/2025 22:36

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:25

WHAT is your problem? I’m not trying to weaken or undermine anything. I’m on a public forum saying what I think. If you don’t like it, so bloody what?

Ok you've said your piece and given your opinion. You seem to be stating something that we are all already aware of. What would you like us to do with this information?

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:36

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:29

Nobody is denying you your right to express an opinion. It's just you've been talking for hours and haven't actually expressed a coherent one.

Yes, it's possible that in exceptionally rare cases someone may get away with breaking the law. And?

You keep asking what my point is but what’s yours?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/05/2025 22:38

OK. That's enough playing pigeon chess for me.
Night all. 😊

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:40

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 22:35

Oh. Ok. Great. We understand your point. You have been heard.

Edited

Doesn’t feel as though I’ve been heard! Feels as though I’ve been shouted down, TBH.

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:41

mrshoho · 16/05/2025 22:36

Ok you've said your piece and given your opinion. You seem to be stating something that we are all already aware of. What would you like us to do with this information?

I don’t want you to do anything with it! I was under the impression this was a public forum and I could say my piece — just as you can.

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:41

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/05/2025 22:38

OK. That's enough playing pigeon chess for me.
Night all. 😊

I'm inclined to agree. Did anyone ever play DrSbaitso back in the day? I said what you said what I said wingnut topsoil mauve bladder.

Alucard55 · 16/05/2025 22:43

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:17

You see, you say, ‘It's not based on appearance. It's based on facts.’

I say, on a day to day basis, it’s absolutely based on appearance. How on earth, if not appearance, do we judge whether someone should be in our space or not? If someone ‘passes’ and decides to ignore the law, how do we know? We don’t.
And if someone doesn’t ‘pass’ but is actually female, what then?

You say, ‘Some men may pass as women so that means .....?????’
To finish your sentence (because you asked me to): ‘Some men may pass as women so if they’re in a female only space, how do we know?’

My argument (and it’s not really an argument as such) is simply that we all, inevitably, judge whether or not someone should be in a female only space according to how they look and that that is not ever going to be 100% accurate.

I think in reality we can't keep all men out of female only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. These men are publicly telling us that they won't stay out. I also think in reality most women will keep their head down and get out of that space very quickly. I do think (hope) that when this settles down most of these men won't be so brave when they're in M&S on their own.

I think in the situations where entry it is based on biological facts such as prisons and sports categories then men will be told "No you can't come in here" and hopefully that will filter down.

This really is over to the men to sort out now.

mrshoho · 16/05/2025 22:44

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:41

I don’t want you to do anything with it! I was under the impression this was a public forum and I could say my piece — just as you can.

What the fuck are you prattling on and on for then? So weird!

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 22:45

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:40

Doesn’t feel as though I’ve been heard! Feels as though I’ve been shouted down, TBH.

I have not seen anyone ‘shout you down’. I have seen people try to clarify your points and work out what you might be saying or not saying.

That is what happens on public open forums. If people feel they want to clarify something said, they will ask. If people are asking, perhaps your first post was not as clear as you thought. I went back and read it and still had questions so I asked.

SternJoyousBee · 16/05/2025 22:45

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:17

You see, you say, ‘It's not based on appearance. It's based on facts.’

I say, on a day to day basis, it’s absolutely based on appearance. How on earth, if not appearance, do we judge whether someone should be in our space or not? If someone ‘passes’ and decides to ignore the law, how do we know? We don’t.
And if someone doesn’t ‘pass’ but is actually female, what then?

You say, ‘Some men may pass as women so that means .....?????’
To finish your sentence (because you asked me to): ‘Some men may pass as women so if they’re in a female only space, how do we know?’

My argument (and it’s not really an argument as such) is simply that we all, inevitably, judge whether or not someone should be in a female only space according to how they look and that that is not ever going to be 100% accurate.

We use our evolved senses to interpret what we see, hear and smell. The way someone moves and the gestures they use tell us a lot. So yes we use appearance but it’s not about clothes and hair.

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:46

mrshoho · 16/05/2025 22:44

What the fuck are you prattling on and on for then? So weird!

Well, you’re nice! I’m just here answering people’s questions. Why do you keep asking them? That’s weirder…

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:50

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 22:45

I have not seen anyone ‘shout you down’. I have seen people try to clarify your points and work out what you might be saying or not saying.

That is what happens on public open forums. If people feel they want to clarify something said, they will ask. If people are asking, perhaps your first post was not as clear as you thought. I went back and read it and still had questions so I asked.

I don’t mind being asked questions. But I have felt shouted down (being asked ‘why the fuck I’m prattling on and on,’ for example). I accept that how I feel and whether or not you’ve noticed it/feel the same are two different things though.

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:54

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:50

I don’t mind being asked questions. But I have felt shouted down (being asked ‘why the fuck I’m prattling on and on,’ for example). I accept that how I feel and whether or not you’ve noticed it/feel the same are two different things though.

You've not been shouted down, you've just been so incoherent for so long that several people asked you for clarification (which they'd not have done if they weren't interested in trying to understand what you had to say). I think we all agree it was not worth the effort but we had to try.

And now, as a PP said, you're just playing pigeon chess and it looks suspiciously like a time wasting derailment ploy. That's the price we pay for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Overall, the payoff is still worth it and this is the kind of thing we have to accept along the way. Enjoy the chessboard. Cheep cheep.

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:56

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:54

You've not been shouted down, you've just been so incoherent for so long that several people asked you for clarification (which they'd not have done if they weren't interested in trying to understand what you had to say). I think we all agree it was not worth the effort but we had to try.

And now, as a PP said, you're just playing pigeon chess and it looks suspiciously like a time wasting derailment ploy. That's the price we pay for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Overall, the payoff is still worth it and this is the kind of thing we have to accept along the way. Enjoy the chessboard. Cheep cheep.

But I haven’t been incoherent. You just don’t like what I’m saying (I assume).

I have absolutely no idea what pigeon chess is, btw. And I don’t really care.

AccidentallyWesAnderson · 16/05/2025 22:58

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 22:54

You've not been shouted down, you've just been so incoherent for so long that several people asked you for clarification (which they'd not have done if they weren't interested in trying to understand what you had to say). I think we all agree it was not worth the effort but we had to try.

And now, as a PP said, you're just playing pigeon chess and it looks suspiciously like a time wasting derailment ploy. That's the price we pay for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Overall, the payoff is still worth it and this is the kind of thing we have to accept along the way. Enjoy the chessboard. Cheep cheep.

The derailment ploy has been a thing on a few threads recently. So many words to say fuck all, quite the skill. So transparent.

Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 23:01

BetterWithPockets · 16/05/2025 22:50

I don’t mind being asked questions. But I have felt shouted down (being asked ‘why the fuck I’m prattling on and on,’ for example). I accept that how I feel and whether or not you’ve noticed it/feel the same are two different things though.

And yet the question of the relevance of your post is valid. I asked it because I wanted to understand if you had any other points that would give further background to your post.

You have clarified that you had no other point to offer. Great. It seems you haven’t extrapolated your thought further as to how your point relates to the OP. That is fine. I suspect what has happened is you posted something to an OP who has posted this thread dishonestly and maybe you have understood why the OP posted it.

The OP posted it in, what seems from their posting history, an attempt to shame women and girls from asking what sex a person accessing a single sex space is. They certainly didn’t post it to discuss it. To be fair, they pretty much indicated that they had not intention of doing that in the first part of the post.

Brigitte33 · 16/05/2025 23:10

What about when she’s in the changing room or toilets with your husbands ?
Hoping you won’t have an issue with that

SC-Fuelled Bathroom Aggression
Helleofabore · 16/05/2025 23:11

Perhaps some people feel your thought hasn’t reached its final point.

Yes. People use the body cues of others to identify people’s sex. Agreed. This is a widely understood fact. It is discussed on this board daily.

It is not unreasonable to ask how that is relevant in relation to the intention of the thread? Ie. To see if you had then processed this further and to understand how your opinion works with the position of extreme transgender activists who have been using this scenario to shame women. In an attempt to change their mind and allow some male people access so that some women and girls are no longer asked such questions to verify their sex.

That was the OP’s intention it seems from further posts.

ThatCyanCat · 16/05/2025 23:13

Brigitte33 · 16/05/2025 23:10

What about when she’s in the changing room or toilets with your husbands ?
Hoping you won’t have an issue with that

Oh hi mate. It's a risk we are willing to take, put it that way.