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.

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

I don't think the public at large spend any time being confused about whether it's actually illegal or not. They just know it's wrong. Social expectations are strong. Most men don't transgress, even if they are complete idiots in other ways. It is ingrained that you don't use the other sex's toilets.

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.

These are quite clearly exceptions. I'm not saying it's right. I think some men might disagree with this behaviour or find it uncomfortable and that is their right to do so. But it's very much the exception, not the rule.

TW want to make their presence in women's toilets the rule.

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.

I do agree with this ^ though. Loath as I am to have more legislation introduced when we have it already, perhaps we need something that spells out once and for all that NO. IT IS NOT FOR YOU to these men who just will not be told and will not obey the existing rules, social or otherwise.

How fucking sad that it's come to that.

I think that is a different thread

They can't jail rapists or child sex abuse collators with hundreds of thousands of images so I don't hold out much hope of the rozzers getting right onto it

Depressing

One of the 'by-products' of clear and consistent enforcement of facilities segregated by biological sex not gender would be a message to young people who may be thinking about 'transitioning'.

All the trouble, and potentially danger, of puberty blockers, hormones, surgery etc etc, will not have the desired, and claimed effect. The biological sex of transpeople is so innate that it is usually recognisable at second or third glance.

Although it goes against the grain to make remarks about people's appearance, I think it's important to point out that transmen are usually easily identified as women, and transwomen as men.

Young people considering transitioning could also be made aware that whatever they identify as or look like, they must use the toilets designated for their biological sex, not their chosen gender.

Kinda puts a different spin on 'living your best life in your acquired gender ID', doesn't it?
Everybody will still recognise your biological sex, and there'll no girlie tampon-sharing fun in the ladies🙄

Ah, you mean draw clear boundaries and uphold them, Marie?
Now there's an idea! 🤔
Hello...Keir...are you there.....?

Exactly and Bridget Phillipson has been sitting on the guidance that makes it clear that men can't use women's single sex facilities for sox months.

It's long overdue for some of these men to be charged with voyeurism / indecent exposure. Their collective attempts to neutralise these sex crimes has been awful - as have the acceptance of all the high placed useful idiots enabling these predatory values.

It really isn't confusing for the general public.

There's a great quote regarding the SC judgement which is along the lines of - the problem with the SC judgement for trans activists isn't that it's confusing. It's that it is so clear.

Your pal shouldn't be accessing women's single sex services or spaces. No matter how nice he is. No matter how much 'he feels like a woman'. No matter if he just pops in and out.

The evidence is right there on social media!
e.g. that creepy-AF Molly bloke waving his camera about in the ladies. He's just one of many.

As a society, we are thankfully coming around to the idea that things like "flashing" i.e. non-contact sex crimes are to be taken seriously nowadays and not just shrugged off.

This intrusive and unwanted behaviour of men in the ladies should be taken equally seriously.

I think we are confusing each other. I agree that it is absolutely clear to everyone that men should use the men's toilets. Nobody is confused about that. But I think that many people, if asked, wouldn't know whether this is just something that they shouldn't do, or whether it's actually a prosecutable crime.
I've just asked DH (sensible intelligent man) and he doesn't know either.

And no. I don't use men's single sex facilities, including toilets.

Because, as the SC judgement made clear, I am not entitled to do so.

And because men deserve their own privacy and dignity in such spaces.

Yes, I see I read your comment slightly differently at first, apologies.
I thought you simply meant "it's confusing for people" (which I don't agree with) but I think what you were saying was "it's confusing for people because they don't know what to do about it" (which I do agree with).
Sorry!

It's both.

It's both something they shouldn't do as them needing in such a space makes it not a single sex space and then means that the service provider is unable to meet their legal obligations and should (despite the dying gasps of Stonewall law) feel confident in asking said person to use the correct facility or leave.

And the service provider is then covered in that if the person refuses to leave/becomes aggressive/exposes themselves etc that there are then crimes which have been committed (as detailed by various posters upthread).

I'm not against specific legislation being enacted if needed but all the 'we can't do anything about these men gloating about accessing single sex spaces as we haven't made a 'Dave from Newport, you cannae use the ladies!!' law yet just smacks of the 'we must wait for the guidance to be published' lollygagging so beloved of the Scottish Government.

The EQA2010 isn't new legislation.

Debbie Hayton has had multiple posts on here saying that single sex toilets and changing rooms are legally unenforceable, yet he also helped write guidance allowing him to use women's toilets in schools where he worked. If he believed the former, why bother with the later?

There's a difference between consequences being a prison sentence, and losing gym membership or losing your job. I'm pretty sure he knew that if told he couldn't use the ladies at work, and he continued, there would have been consequences, just not prison.

We all know why we dont allow adult male strangers to be in open plan changing rooms with teen girls. So we do know there's legal reasoning behind it, and it isn't just politeness.

If a man goes into the women's toilets without exposing himself or becoming aggressive (and there happens to be no women in there at the time so nobody feels threatened):

• there is an obligation on the service provider to uphold the EA and take measures to keep him out.
• there is a well known social contract that the man should not go in there. He knows he is breaching this.
• the man may have committed a generic type crime, but this has not to our knowledge been tested in court.

It's the last point we disagree on. You are absolutely certain that if said man went into the toilet without a woman feeling alarmed that he would still have committed a crime? I'm not convinced. I would prefer a law which states that the very act of entering that single sex space is in itself an offence, regardless of behaviour once inside or who happens to be in there.

That law doesn't exist (yet). I am NOT arguing that the lack of this clarity means that men can do what they like! Just because something may/may not meet the threshold of criminality does not mean it's okay to do it. But instead I am saying that it would be really helpful to embolden people to boot them out.

You are absolutely certain that if said man went into the toilet without a woman feeling alarmed that he would still have committed a crime?

Why should a woman have to 'feel alarmed' in order for him to have committed a crime?

A man entering a female toilet can disadvantage any woman who even just sees him enter because it is likely she will just choose not to enter.

A man entering a female toilets could for example, install a camera for the purpose of filming women and girls and yes this has happened and is getting more frequent.

If you found out a man had been in your home without your permission but had left before you got back; would you feel no crime had been committed?

I was making the point that the law mentioned earlier on the thread by @MarieDeGournay required that some kind of fear/alarm etc had happened? I can't find the post and the name of the law now 🙈

I don't think a woman should have to feel alarm for a crime to have been committed, that's the point. But I thought that our existing generic laws (the aforementioned act, breach of the peace, and similar) generally require alarm by members of the public. I may be wrong.

I think that men going into a women's toilet should be a crime, even if there is no alarm in that instance. If existing legislation does not make this an offence, perhaps we need a new law which does.

Women don't challenge bigger stronger males in a women only space for fear of male violence. Nothing bizarre about that.
The bizarre part is the perverts dressing up as the kind of female they are sexually attracted to and demanding access to women only spaces.

They are porn-addled men.

When is the guidance going to be released? Will they sit on it forever leaving everyone confused? Labour are gutless on this issue because they cannot bring themselves to uphold the law.

It is my personal belief that they cannot release it because it will upset the men in the unions, to have to support women who object to this. You know, those women who pay their bloody fees every month.

If you found out a man had been in your home without your permission but had left before you got back; would you feel no crime had been committed?

You would think that a man who went into your bedroom & wanked over your underwear was committing a crime but apparently not.

A handyman who masturbated over a tenant’s knickers has been acquitted of criminal damage.

sussexonlinenews.co.uk/2024/03/20/masturbating-handyman-gets-off/

Kirridge
I was making the point that the law mentioned earlier on the thread by ^ required that some kind of fear/alarm etc had happened? I can't find the post and the name of the law now 🙈^
It was the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 .

[I quoted another law but I can't remember it offhand and it's too early in the day/insufficient caffeine to go looking for it😄]

There doesn't have to be 'fear/alarm', it can be preventing someone from the 'exercise or enjoyment of a right'.

My suggestion was that men entering a space which is designated for women are preventing women from enjoyment of the legal right they have to their own space.

The presence of a man changes the space from sex-segregated to mixed-sex, thereby removing the provision of a women-only space, which is a legal requirement in some cases.

I tend to avoid using fear/intimidation/violence by trans IDing men in women's spaces as an argument. Others do so effectively and eloquently, with statistics to show that it is a real concern.

But I go on principle: if spaces are segregated by biological sex, and a space is designated for women only, males, however the identify, and however lovely they are, should not go there.
Full stop.