"I've been spat on" - Gender non-conforming women tell of toilet abuse in aftermath of Supreme Court ruling.

[MissJoGrant]

Guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/12/ive-been-spat-on-gender-non-conforming-women-tell-of-toilet-abuse-in-aftermath-of-supreme-court-ruling

I thought certain groups were selling the idea that mastectomies made females look more male? It surprises me that Clare didn’t understand the consequences of this?

Tangential, but I have been spat at by a woman. It had nothing to do with toilets, it was in a medical consultation in which she didn't get the outcome she wanted.

I don't see any justification for using accounts of women being challenged in a women-only space as leverage to allow trans identified males open access to those spaces. That makes no sense at all. If everyone could be confident that men were not accessing women-only spaces they might be less likely to jump to a snap conclusion that a gender non-conforming woman could be a man.

I've never heard of or experienced butch women being barracked in women's bogs. It's really clear they are women. I don't know if it's the case that women have been excluded after the SC ruling (info. on case above seems to say the challenge was made by a man) but if a transman was attempting to look as much like a man as they could, it's possible. It wouldn't concern me at all if butch women or transmen were using the women's.

Two key things which will have contributed are: the invented 'rights' of transwomen of all flavours to barge into the women's bogs and not be challenged, and the necessity of the SC ruling to counteract this.

And the essential lie about sex which means that transmen don't / won't / can't explain who they are in order to be accommodated in the womens'. They will have to decide which is the worst option, being openly a trans man (i.e. female) or having to dodge a bit in the bogs.

I used to be so much more on the side of gender / sexuality 'different' folk but all of the attacks on women's rights and spaces by TRAs have irrevocably hardened my attitudes.

It is interesting and welcome this Guardian piece is now going for the safety angle, especially as it has input from someone associated with the Good Law Project. More thinking about safety please! I would like to know more about the revolting spitting incident. From a quick google, the woman it appears to have happened to does a lot for VAWG and charities.

I loathe spitting. Spitting on the street used to be a thing men did a lot where I lived (because they chewed tobacco). I remember weaving about the pavement to avoid the mucous globules. Blergh. A man on my regular stop who realised what I was doing used to aim so I had to avoid more. I did a typical non-confrontational avoidance thing and walked further to get on at another stop. There’s another thread on here where it’s now something men are aiming now to women (as well as barging into them or pushing into them).

Of course, from a health and safety point of view using single sex toilets (with door gaps above and below) is best. The exception should be for young children going into the toilet of the sex of their carer. This is because it is safer for the child than going into a private mixed sex cubicle with an adult.

As much as I hate spitting, there are a lot worse behaviours that go on everyday in UK toilets.

Toilets are interesting when it comes to who wants to use what I am finding a trend. This is a brief summary of those who don’t want to use the toilets for their sex: Men generally want to use women’s toilets not mixed sex toilets. Women don’t want to use men’s toilets, they want to use mixed sex toilets. When they have the option of women’s or mixed sex, they may learn to avoid the mixed sex toilets because of less safety and less hygiene (depending on location).

This is a problem for the Good Law Project as the different sexes want different things. And whatever they pin their mast to, it involves making the design less safe and annoying people that donated to their campaign.

Not sure what to make of the last sentence in that article - I agree with everyone needs to be more tolerant of non-conforming women in women’s spaces and non-conforming men in men’s spaces - but that’s surely what everyone wants isn’t it?

Prihartini was in the women’s changing room area of her local pool. “I was standing with my top off in front of the mirror putting on my swimming cap. Another woman walked in, gasped audibly and said: ‘There’s a man in here!’ I said: ‘Oh I’m not a man …’ in a friendly way, then she said aggressively: ‘You look like a man, there aren’t meant to be men in here’ and continued to look at my body.

That's a bit odd altogether isn't it? Granted I don't have trouble telling a woman from a man regardless of whether she has breasts or not. Obviously they have different waists still. But equally just mention the double mastectomy maybe or pop a towel on in the changing room?

I do get the impression people are more alert now there's been a lot of attention and discussion about which facilities everyone should use. But equally some seem to be going on of their way to cause issues to make a point.

Noting as well in a swimming room changing room some people won't be wearing glasses.

A trans/pro-trans set up/hoax. Clearly invented by a male. Males spit, women tend not to. And if we see a male in the ladies we flee and get out asap, we would not risk spitting, we don't want to risk being knocked out.

This article is a porn fantasy written by a male.

Yes, they are that transparent!

PS That woman is blatantly and recognisably female. They really think we're this stupid to fall for this bs don't they.

Sorry, I refuse to give that article a click from me, so can someone who took one for the team tell me what it said about mastectomy? Did she have one?
You know, there are completely flat-chested women with A or less size cups. It's strange they are now desperately using flat-chested women as a 'gotcha' now. Like as if we don't look at womens faces first. I can't remember actually looking at any womens chests, their face is really the only thing I see and notice. Whoever concocted this bullshit article does not have a scintilla of an idea how women actually operate, if they think we walk around staring at tits. Such a male porn-soaked idea.

Yes, the woman had had a bilateral mastectomy following breast cancer - she has no nipples and small scars. Says she was confronted in a changing room and accused of being a man.

The woman who had the mastectomy is Jolyon foxkiller's wife. She would never be mistaken for a man.

Does anyone have any insight into why the EHRC draft guidance seemingly contemplates institutions asking to see people's birth certificates for sex-based rights purposes?

This makes no sense, because birth certificates are no longer reliable records of biological sex. A certificate incongruent with appearance will tell you the holder has a GRC (or, just possibly, a DSD), but this information is worthless. The whole point of the ruling was that a GRC is not an all-access pass.

The ruling also made it clear that single-sex spaces should be policed exactly as they were before this madness started, by individuals' consciences and by social exclusion of people who appear to be the wrong sex. This isn't a horrifying injustice, it's the operation of the derogation from the ban on perceptive sex discrimination under Schedule 3 (exemplified in the ruling by reference to transmen).

Thus, a gym can legally exclude from its women's CR not only TW (although there's no way to keep out the unicorns passing TW), but also transmen, more unicorns butch lesbians who look just like men, and Caster Semenya (fun fact: Semenya's meet-cute with future wife was when the latter tried to throw Semenya out of a CR).

Why, then, is the EHRC suggesting this?

A woman who is regularly mistaken for a man has written to The Guardian in response to this article. It’s a really good letter.

"This isn’t about the trans or non-binary debate. The real issue is that in this country, we have an extremely reductive view of what even a biological woman should look like, sound like and dress like. To an extent, the challenge to binaries has unfortunately and bizarrely played a role in reducing the visual and social footprint of natal womanhood even further. I am regularly asked by well-meaners my pronouns too – something I find just as insulting.

The way I am is no statement, no protest, no challenge. It is simply how I have always been. Comfy, lazy, functional. Why should those be the preserve of men?”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/15/i-am-a-gender-non-conforming-woman-here-is-what-my-life-is-like

Here is the archive for those who don’t want to give the Guardian any clicks:
https://archive.is/jeBSm

On my only trip to the USA I travelled round the country a lot, and was pulled aside for searching every single flight. No one ever said why, so I'm a little surprised they told her.

I suspect in my case it was a combination of being within weeks of the end of my visa (I was there for a lecture tour, the visa was for one month only) and having a name that was uncommon in America. Their gaff, their rules, it wasn't a big deal. But they certainly did not explain what put me on their list.

Thanks for this, it is relevant to what I came on here to say: that if you look at a photo of a group of boys and girls from, say, the 70s, they will almost all look gender non-conforming. Who are the boys and who are the girls in this photo from the 1970s? [random off the internet, not a family snap]

Gender stereotyping has got worse and worse since then, e.g. princess/sparkles/fairies/pink/butterflies/unicorns, and the efforts girls are expected to make to be 'gender conforming', like skin care, make up, hair care, not to mention clothes, are complex, time consuming and expensive - so they are a valuable market for big business.
And they are being marketed to younger and younger girls - it is not unusual, and possibly even the norm, for girls to wear make up to school, which would have been not just against uniform policy, but unthinkable not so long ago.

So in the current context, it's very easy to be for a woman to be 'gender non-conforming'!