A Question of Some Considerable Delicacy

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

Ever since FWS, we've been told by TRAs that the country is awash with transwomen who are heartbroken and terrified because they've been told to stop using women's facilities, and this has outed them to their colleagues.

I'm finding this hard to believe, because I have virtually never mistaken a transwoman for a woman. There have been previous threads about this, from which I gather that the scientific consensus is that humans are very good at sexing other humans from an early age.

Maybe I am just wrong, though, and have been fooled many times. And maybe some people aren't very perceptive. According to a recent thread, Morgane Oger thinks he could only accurately sex about 70% of a mixed crowd; a PP on the same thread thinks Maya Forstater looks like a man.

So I would like to hear other people's experiences of this (please try not to insult or offend!). Were you ever surprised, when a woman turned out to be a man?

This piece about Kelly v Leonardo reveals the mindset:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/10/terf-employee-admits-to-secret-cis-only-bathroom-at-work-i-wont-sacrifice-my-privacy-my-dignity/

Kelly also admitted to speculating over her colleagues’ gender identities and tracking their bathroom usage, telling the tribunal that over a period of six to nine months, she identified three people she believed to be trans who were using the women’s restrooms.

This seems to misrepresent what was happening. MK was not speculating: she knew that they were men, surely?

I'm interested primarily in what this means for the law, in particular in relation to Article 8 ECHR (right to private life). TRAs interpret this as an unlimited right to conceal one's sex in every situation. But how can even a limited such right exist, if there is no way in reality that such concealment can reliably be achieved, from everyone, all of the time?

Are they actually demanding the right to force everyone to pretend to be fooled? That's not a privacy right.

If you reframe or represent your argument in response to my misconceptions, we are likely to have a better understanding of each other’s perspectives.

I find myself presenting and representing my perspective many times on threads, in response to misconceptions as they arise - so I’m not asking of you something I don’t do myself.

Well that’s an opinion, and we both entitled to them, even if they differ. As I have previously said, even if it is legal, it does not mean it is ethical. Men were legally allowed to beat their wives in the 19th Century - thank goodness that law changed.

None of that has anything to do with how men are and always will remain men, no matter what elective superficial surgery they have done to their bodies.

I'll ask you again, what benefit (if any) is there to women, to allow men into female single sex spaces? hint, there is no benefit to women at all

Some men.

SOME

A word sadly underused in these discussions.

Baker is a male person without testicles (I believe he removed them himself in prison) yet leads chants at protests about punching women who don't agree with him.

Should Baker be allowed to access female single sex provisions?

Why? What changed Baker from being male to no longer being male for the purpose of accessing female single sex provisions?

And how do we tell them apart?

I'd make the argument that any man who knowingly enters a female single sex space is already committing at least 2 transgressions (social convention, as well as the law. Edited to add, these are both in place to benefit females, and importantly to keep the female sex safe from the male sex), and is therefore predatory.

To maintain clarity, my entire point here is simply to highlight that the issue some people seem to have with trans women using women’s toilets stems from the fear that men might exploit gender identity to harm women. That fear, while understandable in a safeguarding context, can be deeply damaging to trans women — human beings who just need to use a toilet in peace. If someone commits sexual assault, it’s not because they are trans, and it’s certainly not because of which toilet they used.

Any male person accessing female single sex spaces knowing that they should not be there is deliberately making a decision to ignore female people's boundaries. We have even seen this on this thread.

What word describes a male person who ignores female people's boundaries that we can use?

So is it ‘trans people make up 1% of the population there is no way you are seeing so many who don’t pass’

or is it

’trans people are everywhere and pass so well you don’t even notice’

I’ve seen both on this thread but but both can’t be true so which is it?

"men might exploit gender identity to harm women"

Some men do. Do you dispute that? If so we can provide you with numerous examples.

So the best thing all round for women, is to keep all men out. Simple.

Edited to add that no one is saying sexual assaults on women happen because someone is trans. We are saying that sexual assaults on women happen because of men, trans women are men.

Because a male dressed in a very feminine fashion going into a mens loo is likely to receive unwanted attention.

Because a male dressed in female clothing, especially one who has had surgery, can't easily use a urinal and most men's loos are woefully short of toilets as any bloke who regularly needs one will tell you.

Society needs more gender neutral facilities and trans people to harden up about the perception of being outed by using them.

And the autogynophiles to go back into their closets.

Ah, the classic “hint: there is no benefit” — a bold move in a debate setting. The benefit is that public policy isn’t built on personal disgust but on fairness, legality, and evidence. Women benefit from living in a society where safeguarding is based on behaviour and risk, not identity or internet rhetoric.
Interesting use of the word “allow” — as though trans women require collective permission to exist in public life. The benefit is simple: a society that treats people as individuals, applies safeguarding proportionately, and doesn’t conflate identity with danger is safer for everyone, women included, by addressing the real issues.

What is it that's prevents transwomen from using male toilets in your opinion?

Why can't they just join other men using the men's toilet in peace?

Another one for the bingo card.

I think it’s shocking how women are expected to respect the feeling of trans people to the point where we are expected to ignore our own.

Man pretends to be woman and only feels comfortable in women’s bathroom - this is fine, their feeling matter and they must do what feels right for them.

Woman feels uncomfortable with man in female bathroom - how dare they think their feelings matter the fucking transphobes.

Because a male dressed in a very feminine fashion going into a mens loo is likely to receive unwanted attention.

Really? Why can't men be accepting of men who like to wear women's clothes?

And the point about surgery is somewhat moot as so few of them have it.

Harm to women and girls in male people using the spaces they need to remain female only doesn't just happen with assaults though.

There are many diverse needs for female people using female toilets, not all of those needs fit neatly into cubicles, however whatever those needs the female people need protection from any harm that the presence of a male person over about 8 years old brings.

Can you please produce the evidence that a male person who has the philosophical belief that they are female has a lower risk of causing harm by being there to female people in female single sex provisions?

If you were ever in any doubt about the levels of misogyny in the world.

Why is that the only peoples feelings you care about here are men's?

Can we just put this silly argument to bed! The whole of the world knows that you are born a boy or a girl ( please don't start on the ridiculous intersex arguments 1. it's abobut 0.01% of the population and 2. All of their body will e either XY or XX. So irrelevant.
Men who want to wear dresses , ( nobody cares), you aren't special anymore than a woman wearing jeans.
Taking female spaces, awards, programmes, places etc when you are a man is wrong.
That's it.
Not difficult for the vast majority of the population!

Exactly. Take it up with the men. They should Be Kind.

You might as well ask why women can't be more accepting of the vast majority of TiM who would no more harm a woman than than kick a dog.

They are afraid of men in exactly the same way that many women are afraid of men. They experience a significant amount of abuse from men.

The only answer is gender neutral facilities. I wonder who's going to pay for those.

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of both safeguarding principles and the now clarified legal framework of the EA.

Safeguarding certainly does involve making provision on the basis of whole groups of people. That group can be as wide as "all people" (e.g. potententially all and any humans may commit X and so we will apply Y measure to all, no exceptions), or may be confined to particular groups of the population (e.g. all adults are a potential and statistical risk to children so we will require DBS checks for any adult in a school, but not any attending or visiting children). In this case we are talking about all male people being a potential and statistical risk to female people and provision being made accordingly.

The SC judgment clarified that the exceptions in the EA and the proprtionate means of achieving a legitimate aim can absolutely be applied at the level of sex and the analysis end there. Moreover, the idea that you NOT leave the analysis there and nonetheless continue to hold the door open for certain individual men on a case by case basis would remove the legal protection the EA offers against a discrimination action, because you would no longer be operating under the permitted exemption of discriminating (neutral usage) on the basis of sex.

You can legitimately choose to have completely mixed sex facilities (though you may face legal challenge on the basis of indirect discrimination in some cases) OR single sex spaces, but if the latter they do have to be separated on the basis of biological sex and not gender identity or certificated sex in order to be lawful. There is no provision for a halfway house approach.

Ah the classic Be Kind!

No.

You have not described to me any actual real life benefit to women. It's easy to see why you've tried to distract from this with "letting some men into female single sex provisions is of non-specific societal benefit to everyone so therefore it benefits women somehow if you willfully close your eyes to all the evidenced harms and open your mind so far your brain falls out.

The fact is that it is of detriment to the female sex to include those of the male sex in female single sex spaces, provisions, prisons, sports, prizes etc etc etc. It might be of benefit to the men, I could easily make that argument, but there is absolutely nothing of benefit to the female sex in any of that.

It's a one way street, and those arguing for the inclusion of men in female single sex anything are showing their misogyny whether they realise it or not.

If you can think of a benefit to the female sex, I'd be all ears, but I doubt you can do it.

'Women benefit from living in a society where safeguarding is based on behaviour and risk, not identity or internet rhetoric.'

Women accessing publicly accessible single sex provisions benefit from safeguarding that treats all male people as being of equal risk and being excluded.

Do you have any evidence that a male person who has the philosophical belief that they are female has a lower risk of committing sex offences and violence and abuse offences than any other male person in the UK population?

Why should this one group of male people get special treatment in accessing female single sex provisions when no other male group of people do?