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.

It’s a good one isn’t? Do any of these people have sons who might secretly want to transition I wonder 🤔

@Helleofabore - you've been Banarama-ed!

So educate us then. How would someone determine their gender?

An office isn't a lawfully female single sex space 😂

You know how ridiculous your arguments are right? 😂

But are you right, perhaps you are mis-identifying women as trans, have you confirmed your opinions?

I know Bref. And as with that defence, I think anything I would say be considered problematic.

But then this thread is WILD!

Oh noes! I for one am devastated randoms on the internet think I’m uneducated for not believing in “gender” as some innate property distinct from a person’s biological sex. I guess I think everyone who does is a bit misguided (the polite term). Sad times.

But surely the risk of being alone with a man that hasn’t walked into your office with your permission is the same?
Is there more risk of there being a sex offender in the office or a sex offending trans woman in the public toilets?

OK. So sex means nothing , you can change it with surgery and hormones - but if it means nothing why do you need the surgery and the hormones. Just accept that your little girl is a "tomboy" or your son likes playing with dolls. NOBODY CARES!!!!!! So leave them alone to be who they want to be, love them and ignore any "quirks". I'm yet to meet a child without a quirk. Enjoy them. It goes so fast , your time with them when they are young. Give lots of kisses!

Yes, the important thing here of course!

You cannot change sex. Your chromosomes cannot be changed

However they like 🤷🏼‍♀️

How odd that you only asked about sons? Do daughters not "transition"? in fact I thought autustic girls were the largest group

Are you often in a state of undress in your office? Do you sit at your desk with your knickers pulled down?

I agree, inclusion doesn’t have to be incoherent. It isn’t incoherent if transwomen are included in provision where access is determined by gender identity. It is incoherent if the provision is defined as being for natal women.

Do you understand why your position is understood as seeking to remove the right to natal female only provision? You may argue that this is no bad thing, but it’s important to be upfront about female only provision that includes transwomen not being female only, regardless of the legal status and social acceptance of transwomen.

The crux of the issue is that transwomen want single sex provision to be perceived and understood as being single sex, and to be included. They do not want to access provision that is mixed sex, even if it’s safe, because this highlights they are not natal women. From this perspective, the only acceptable solution is to remove single sex provision, pretend it is single sex, and include transwomen.

Is it? As pp have pointed out, there will be other people there and I’m not in a vulnerable state, so he’s less likely to sexually assault me. Offices are not female only spaces and he’s not in violation of my rights to privacy and dignity and my boundaries from the get go, like he would be if he went in the women only changing rooms or toilets.

According to the last census there is a higher proportion of trans identifying people in East London than anywhere else in the UK ( with the possible exception of Brighton) . Unfortunately , like many of the statistics relating to trans people, this stat has been thoroughly debunked because the Census question was so poorly worded that many people, possibly with limited English reading and comprehension skills, misunderstood the question. Even the ONS acknowledges that the census question was flawed and the “information” it produced is useless.

This is another example of why it is so important that the language we use is clear and unambiguous eg trans identifying men ( TIM) not transwomen, breastfeeding not chestfeeding, women not people with a uterus etc etc etc. One of the reasons Stonewall successfully tweaked peoples misunderstanding of their trans agenda was by deliberately promoting ambiguous language, designed to deceive.

And the damage has stuck, people still believe that TIM are women, that TIW are men, that biological sex is more complicated than basic genetics, that surgery and artificial hormones can change a persons sex, that gender and sex are interchangeable terms, that the physical effects of male puberty can be reduced to nothing, that giving irreversible hormone treatment to young people confused about their emerging sexuality means that their already diagnosed anxiety, autism and eating disorders will disappear. Lies and damn lies bolstered by manipulative spin..

That was what I was trying to say , albeit badly!!!

So it's just pic n mix off a list and bam! You're a woman now and can have access to all women's sex based rights.

Gosh, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Meaning that the test for whether a particular man should be allowed in the women's toilets is, "if he likes"?

If I wanted to explore my gender identity what aspects of my behaviour should I look at to determine if that fits with a feminine identity or masculine identity?

Is it what I wear, the hobbies I like, the job that i do?

Trans women are men so if you include trans women in women's spaces they become mixed sex. It's all laid out in the fws high court judgement very clearly

So basically @Mamma246 ...

When you said this earlier on

inclusion in single-sex spaces can be managed safely through risk- and context-based policies.

That was entirely disingenuous, because there are no risk and context based policies.

Any man can pick 'female gender' off a list and then gain access to women's sex specific spaces.

Is it? I should bow out, as I've already had a ban. This seemed quite timid to me!

Goodness, this poster was being disingenuous! Perish the thought.