Men who say they are women

[Shedmistress]

Men who say they are women and then also say 'I don't like men in women's spaces'.

They totally understand that the men that are in women's spaces, are them, right?

They must know that.

We know they know that.

They know that we know they know that.

They know full well that the reason 'nobody has ever challenged me' is because women don't want a punch in the face. Or to face years of a tribunal because the man who says he is a woman went crying to the manager.

They say they are victims of the patricarchy, but they ARE the patriarchy. They know this. Because they are men.

This whole 'needing to use female spaces' comes from the doctors who would only sign off on a surgery if the men had duped people into allowing them to use female spaces, and to which we refer back to the above points of nobody wanting to challenge them. Not because of the potential for male violence, just for the exploitation of females who don't want to be punched.

I find it fascinating, i really do, the delusion to which we are all supposed to dance around and the deletions when women just say no. Or when women refer to their own situations having come across these men and the inferences that 'we've never met one, so how would we even tell'. For me it is the personal experiences that made me as hard line as I am.

Agreed.

We actually need action taken against the gloaty influencers promoting invasion of women's only spaces as sexual harassment.

So far the courts have dismissed such claims against individuals - but I believe these incidents all effectively predate the SC ruling.

It would be interesting to test it with influencers who are openly saying they are going to do it whether women consent or not or despite the law - as they are acknowledging they a) know they are male b) know the law c) showing intent to upset women if they don't like it.

Had to. My editing skills are shit though.

If misogyny was a stand alone hate crime (not an amplifier) , I wonder if that would make a difference to the shit that some men post about deliberately ignoring the EA2010, and work regulations?

However, in the US there is little to do with ‘influencers’ when you have groups of men from the Congress making ‘look at us, whatcha goin’ to do about it!’ making vids of them dancing around in a female toilet.

The chilling effect is very real.

But the service provider or employers do know the law and after the SC judgement cannot either (knowingly or naively) shrink behind 'but Stonewall told us to do it! '

Sevice providers and employers do need to take on that onus as they are legally required to, and actually enforce it.

'No, you are not entitled to use those facilities/service. Use the correct ones or please leave'.

'No you can't flout the 1992 workplace regulations with your presence making that facility ipso facto a mixed sex space'.

Because if service providers and employers are obliged to provide single sex spaces and services, then they have to enforce them actually being so.

There is an important point here though.

Requiring the service providers to police who is using the facilities plays into the power dynamics that the TRAs depend on. It's risky to take on a massive, entitled, aggressive bloke. Easier to just hope the women won't complain.

And it's hard to police toilet usage at an individual level, holding individuals responsible. Because there will always be situations where people get caught out.

I think there needs to be some kind of campaign to signal that a) providers will be backed up in upholding the law b) women encouraged to complain where there are breaches c) all men have a role to play because 'good men stay out so bad men stand out'

I know that's all pie in the sky, but ideally

How is the 5'2" female staff member supposed to challenge? They should be able to just ring the bloody police.

Well that's kind of my point. They need to know that they are being backed up here.

I suppose if the onus is on the service provider to do their best to ensure single sex services are single sex, women can go to their employer or the gym to say they arent doing enough. It could be that the signs aren't clear enough or there's a culture of not caring. And they have power to stop persistent individuals.

Men in women's toilets and changing rooms should be taken seriously by police, though, even when they claim gender or a doctor told them to do it. Any man can say this, regardless of his intent.

Double post

If the angry, entitled men get aggressive or verbally abusive towards a staff member while said staff member is upholding the obligation for the service provider they work for to follow the law in regards to single sex facilities, the staff member should phone the Police, knowing that they will have the full backing of their organisation.

I did bar work for years and came up against many, many such angry entitled men. I'm reminded of one such instance when a very angry man took against me 'being a bitch' by refusing to serve him any more alcohol because he was pished. He threatened to set off a fire extinguisher in my face, I threatened to phone the police. If he so wanted, he could have stuck around to debate the finer points of me being a bitch to the Police. He fucked off. I did this knowing I would have the backing of my organisation and if service providers actually pull their fingers out and implement and enforce their obligations, then staff members can actually say 'no, leave or I'll phone the police'.

(As an aside, I've had many public jobs where I've had to argue with very angry customers about the most bizarre situations. I've got many stories which start 'well, I had to go and say....'

@TheKeatingFive has got a good idea there. How about posters, notices etc in women’s spaces stating simply that “men are not allowed in this single sex space. If you see a man in here, please report to staff who are ready to take appropriate action”. E.G. See it, Say it, Sorted

Didn't the first iteration of the 'guidance' suggest that if a man wants to access for example a female only changing room, a staff member was to take them into a side room and explain the law to them and tell them to use the men's

Thus putting the receptionist, probably a female of course, into an actual risky situation telling a man he was a man and risking his potential violent response?

There have been some examples of 'best practice' after the SC ruling, we've had photos of signs saying pretty much that - not enough of them, but some venues and organisations did respond correctly.

My suggested sign would say something like:
Men's Toilet /changing room]. All males of whatever gender identity should use this facility.
and a similar one for the Women's.

A footnote could say
'Please note that in accordance with the Supreme Court 2025 ruling, facilities are designated according to biological sex, not gender identity'.

'Should use' in an official statement is strong enough to make ignoring it a disciplinary matter, I think.

I’m determined to challenge every man in a WSSS. And report them to the service provider and ask that they be compelled to use the facilities that align with their sex.

Thus putting the receptionist, probably a female of course, into an actual risky situation telling a man he was a man and risking his potential violent response?

And the world revolves around the potential (or actual) anger of men yet again.

They could just....stay out of places not meant for them? How come other men, even quite angry and otherwise unpleasant ones, can manage this?

A side room? Christ, that's horrible advice. To presumably give him privacy to rant and rave away from the (safer for the receptionist) public areas?

And if I saw the same man twice I’d challenge him again and inform the police it was harassment.

Great post

The thing about 'bigger issues' is that it only goes one way. Were there no 'bigger issues' when men demanded access to women's spaces and services? They prioritised the 'issue' then. But as soon as women want their rights back, suddenly its of no consequence.

Utter misogynistic bullshit. All of it.

What about the women that say they are men.

What about them? What's your question?

Of course there were no bigger issues. And yes it always only goes one way. Women have to put themselves at the back of the queue because of every other fucking issue.

Legislation and policies relating to trans issues were relatively cheap and easy to introduce. A no effort way of getting purity points for a lot of people.

I bet there's a whole cohort of men with prostate cancer who will be surprised that they are now women due their medication.

Was it simply taking hormones that makes you a woman? How does that work with menopausal women taking HRT, are we more womany or have we become men now?

It's not a logical argument, is it?

I don't agree with this.
If everyone could be expected to follow all reasonable rules, we wouldn't need separate legislation for the ones people regularly break.
There are lots of things that could be covered by the generic antisocial behaviour type laws which we have. But we decided it was necessary to have separate laws for littering, failing to pick up dog poo, parking in inappropriate places, entering someone's house uninvited, etc.
The public at large are confused about whether it is actually illegal to enter the opposite sex's toilets, or just frowned on. There have been threads on here where women have said they use the men's toilets if the queue is too long for the women's, or they're at a football match and the women's are too far away.

Whilst in an ideal society separate laws wouldn't be needed, a specific piece of legislation for this would be enormously helpful in clearing up widespread misunderstanding and give less well informed women confidence to object to men in their spaces.

Plus I agree with @BettyBooper , that while service providers do need to shape up, I think that mainly people are responsible for themselves and that the responsibility to adhere to the law needs to be clearly on the individual breaking it. I want the actual men prosecuted, rather than liability placed on the swimming pool with teenage staff afraid to stand up to the giant bloke in a dress.

The public at large are confused about whether it is actually illegal to enter the opposite sex's toilets, or just frowned on.

The public at large don't just frown on a man following an 8 year old girl into the toilets or changing room. They know that the adult man shouldn't be there.

Male trans people say they need to use the women's toilets because its not safe to be in toilets with other men, so they presumably more than just frown on men following them into the women's toilet.

The vast majority of the public go into the correct toilets every time, so I dont believe that the public are confused about the sign at all.