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.

Thank you! Totally agree re lack of caffeine!

The 2022 act does not unfortunately apply in Scotland. But I am glad the English and Welsh have a law which could, in theory, be used to prosecute a man entering female SSSs. I still wish it was clearly laid out in law though, so we could be absolutely confident in it.

Enjoy your coffee!

The law needs to be changed.
This clearly warrants being made criminal.
A man who does this has both feet on the ladder to sexual assault.

This is a good reminder for me.

https://x.com/thearbourist/status/2034625446784958710?s=46

“When one group’s ‘rights’ require another group to surrender privacy, fairness, or conscience, the conflict is no longer about equality. It is about power.”

”The smartest move activists made was rhetorical: they stopped arguing for contested demands and started calling them “rights.” After that, dissent could be recoded as cruelty, and ordinary objections could be treated as moral failure.”

“Female spaces were not built out of bigotry. They were built because sex differences are real, and privacy, safety, and fairness matter. Calling those boundaries hateful does not refute them. It just bullies people into silence.”

“A demand for equality says: leave me free. A demand for compliance says: you must affirm, yield, and rearrange your world around me. Too much of this debate is presented as the first when it is plainly the second.”

Thank you for posting that @Helleofabore, it's an automatic save for me! I followed the link to the full article and it's honestly gold.

"A right is not the same thing as a demand for access, validation, or institutional compliance. Female sports were not created out of prejudice, but out of recognition that sex differences matter in strength, speed, endurance, and physical risk. Female shelters, prisons, and changing rooms were built on the same logic. They exist because privacy, safety, fairness, and dignity are not imaginary goods. They are concrete protections, won through long struggle, and they do not cease to matter because a new vocabulary has been imposed on the debate.

Once this is seen clearly, much of the rhetoric falls apart. If a male-bodied person demands entry into a female space, the objection is not that he lacks human worth. It is that women have sex-based boundaries, and those boundaries exist for reasons. If a parent objects to gender ideology in schools, that is not the denial of anyone’s basic rights. It is the defense of parental authority in an area of profound moral and developmental consequence. If a citizen resists compelled pronouns or refuses to treat metaphysical claims about sex as binding fact, that is not violence. It is a refusal to surrender conscience and language to activist pressure.

That is why the language matters. “Trans rights” sounds like a plea for equal liberty. In many of the most contentious cases, it is something else: a demand that others yield, affirm, and rearrange long-standing social boundaries on command. When women refuse that erasure, or parents refuse that indoctrination, or citizens refuse that compelled speech, they are not violating rights. They are defending their own."

It is great.

It is something we have pointed out on mn for an age.

It is an additional privilege that male people seek, not a ‘right’. They already have the ‘right’ to use the provision set up for their sex, and any other mixed sex provision. What they demand is the right to access ALL provisions to suit themselves.

And this is also a good reminder as you say.

If a citizen resists compelled pronouns or refuses to treat metaphysical claims about sex as binding fact, that is not violence. It is a refusal to surrender conscience and language to activist pressure.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fc4f9304-0d09-476d-9311-e9d1f4a2ca83?shareToken=6d5cb40ddd81d5f2731e58017fc28490

oh look. Richards is back representing the South coast endometriosis group again. This time in a parliamentary engagement role. After resigning as an executive when women complained about him speaking for women two years ago, he is back doing it again.

Just another man taking a representation role needed for female health away from a female person.

Anyone would think he is targeting specific roles...

Indeed.

Only men feel this level of entitlement - he's a complete plonker.

Something like this? 🙂

This video from Amy Sousa seems pertinent here.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2035857970358272048?s=46

Particularly the comment about if one boundary has been violated by someone why should we trust that person. Just showing they are willing to violate one boundary is a sign we shouldn’t trust that person.

I consider this starts at language as an initial boundary violation.

@POWNewcastleEastWallsend that sign’s a bit verbose and a little confusing, presumably relevant to that specific provision. How about “no blokes in this bog (of any ID)”, even that would get twisted no doubt

That sign was from 2018

Aha! Before the madness so a bit vague was ok

...

🙄
Is this a game of 'spot the [possibly not] deliberate errors?
If it's an accessible toilet, why is it designated for able-bodied women?
If it's a women's toilet, why are disabled men allowed in it?

What it's really saying is 'We do not have a women's toilet. We have a men's, and a disabled, but no women's.'

Still, that was 2018 and hopefully by now they have a men's, women's and accessible, and have a clear notice on each stating that they are soley for men/women/disabled people respectively

Very verbose. Probably written by The Committee that "will not tolerate disregard for this instruction."

Yes, 2018. It was still there when I photographed it in August 2025. 👍

This video nails the tactics we see so many times!

Confusing & Nonsensical Reasoning

I am sure many of the regulars can recite the many we see. She mentions the common ones like ‘it is only 1%’. Amy mentions the language confusion too. I would suggest any poster who tells us that of course no one wants ‘men’ in single sex provisions, using the dishonest approach of declaring that some men are not ‘men’ and trying to force the issue to be only with ‘cis’ men (of course I don’t use that term but those using the tactic often do), is guilty of this.

I would also suggest the dishonest tactic we see of posters declaring that they are not ‘men’ but add women and have always / for decades been women and are ‘treated’ as women fit the dishonest argument that Amy is talking about.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2036184834280923634?s=46

The simple terms for this is simply 'controlling the narrative'. The best person you will see doing this is Trump. Say we are talking about weeds, Trump would come along and say why are we worried about weeds it's the vampire bats we need to be concerned about because they kill babies. It's the shift and deflect and drama use to control the narrative.

We see it with 'just wanting to pee' as if we are over reacting and being ridiculous.

We see it with the pivot to 'you think all trans people are pervs' and them focusing back on safety and away from arguments about privacy and dignity of women which are actually harder in many ways to deflect from. The switch is about positioning themselves as a safe person whilst wishing that the privacy and dignity argument that remains just evaporates.

We see it with the 1% forgetting that's not the statistic that matters. The statistic that matters is how many women a single trans identifying male can negatively impact over the course of their life. This actually starts to add up to a high percentage of the female population.

We see the distract technique when talking about being biologically female. I find this one frustrating and alarming when done to parents or vulnerable young people as it's akin to lying and misinformation and therefore it has to be challenged but it still controls the narrative to a degree because YOU have to prove they are women rather than THEM proving they are.

We see it with the most vulnerable spiel in society, despite the fact they automatically get a seat at the table whilst women have had to go to court to even get listened to and still don't automatically get a seat.

It's Trumpian tactics. Women don't do it when talking about this subject. It's about taking control away from women. It's gaslighting.

In my experience they end up arguing about anything - even against single sex/gender services rather than say why a sub set of men are no longer men.

Their default position is they are a minority, therefore are oppressed, marginalised and in danger. They offer no proof of this link or why it follows that women have to budge up.

But a lot of people are taken in by these assumptions and take questioning or ignoring them as aggression. Lots of people do believe that it is women's problem to either include these men or find another solution that will make them happy.

What it's really saying is 'We do not have a women's toilet. We have a men's, and a disabled, but no women's.'

It would definitely be better if The Ladies were not doubling as an Accessible Toilet. I am guessing that it was easier to convert The Ladies than The Gents because The Gents probably has urinals. The Club has been in these premises since 1920 and would originally been a men's club by default as it was created by and for military veterans of WW1.

Probably not going to see much change for the foreseeable future as they are raising funds to repair the roof at the moment.

The part of the post I was replying to that I was focusing on was this bit:

"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.”

The Notice makes it clear that men obviously had been using The Ladies when they shouldn't and that The Committee intends to take action against any of them who continue to do so, probably by rescinding their membership if they were members and barring them.

It is a small town so there would be a lot of public shame, ridicule and disgust if a man was banned by the Club for going into The Ladies. Which is how things used to be and how the Social Contract was maintained:

This toilet is primarily a Ladies Toilet and doubles as a Disabled Toilet.

This is the only Ladies Toilet in the Club and this must respected and Committee will not tolerate disregard for this instruction.

Nowhere does it indicate that this is a Gents Toilet and therefore it MUST NOT be used as such.

I have never seen a Notice like this anywhere else.

Although the toilet provision itself might not be perfect and the wording of the Notice can be criticised for being verbose, I think that is entirely missing the point. Which is that this is surely exactly the sort of attitude we want to see? ie. Management (the Committee in this case) laying down the law and promising to punish any man who goes into The Ladies.

I don't know if their resolve has ever been tested by a man claiming to be a woman using The Ladies and how they would react. I also very much doubt they have heard of the Supreme Court Judgement in FWS v The Scottish Ministers. I have no intention of naming the Club or the town because I think we all know what would happen if I did.

I think if we are looking for definitions of female people, I guess the IOC policy may be a good place to start.

Biological Female (Female): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced female sex development usually based on their XX-chromosomes, ovaries, and estrogenic hormones.

Oh.... what were we told ... that gametes were 'far right wing' reductionism.....

Yeah... ok...

Here is the statement:

https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/international-olympic-committee-announces-new-policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-women-s-category-in-olympic-sport

here is the policy

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf

THE POLICY

For the purpose of this Policy, the IOC has adopted the consensus definitions of the Working Group, which are set out in Schedule 1.
For all disciplines on the Sports Programme of an IOC Event, including individual and team sports, eligibility for any Female Category is limited to Biological Females.

Eligibility for the Female Category is to be determined in the first instance by SRY Gene screening to detect the absence or presence of the SRY Gene. On the basis of the scientific evidence, the IOC considers that the SRY Gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has

experienced or will experience Male sex development. Furthermore, the IOC considers that SRY Gene screening via saliva, cheek swab or blood sample is unintrusive compared to other possible methods.
Athletes who screen negative for the SRY gene permanently satisfy this Policy’s eligibility criteria for competition in the Female Category. Unless there is reason to believe a negative reading is in error, this will be a once-in-a-lifetime test.

With the exception of athletes with a diagnosis of CAIS or other rare DSDs that do not benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone, no athlete with an SRY-positive screen is eligible for competition in the Female Category.

Athletes with an SRY-positive screen, including XY transgender and androgen-sensitive XY-DSD athletes, continue to be included in all other classifications for which they qualify, for example, they are eligible for (i) any Male Category, including in a designated Male slot within any mixed category, and (ii) any open

category or in sports and events that do not classify athletes by Sex.
The IOC recognises that XY athletes who identify as women and who want the opportunity to compete at IOC Events according to their legal sex or gender identity may disagree with this Policy. However, after a thorough scientific review and consultations with constituents of the Olympic Movement, the IOC

determined that a Sex-based eligibility rule is necessary and adequate to the attainment of the IOC’s goals for competition at IOC Events.

This is under the definitions section:

Sex: Either of the two categories, Male or Female, into which humans are divided according to their reproductive biology.

Biological Female (Female): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced female sex development usually based on their XX-chromosomes, ovaries, and estrogenic hormones.

Biological Male (Male): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced male sex development usually based on their XY-chromosomes, testes/testicles and androgenic hormones.