Dozens of men discuss ignoring single sex space rules

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1u1webq/is_anyone_here_actually_going_to_follow_the/

as mentioned in other threads, I really am concerned about compliance. I know it will never be 100% but am concerned about what blatant non compliance may lead to

Exactly. In 2003 we didn’t do that.

The strategy fails to understand it is a legal obligation, not a choice however. Regardless of however many people do this, and it will be very few, the service provider CANNOT back down.

My, that's a lot of typing to do one-handed.

They don't understand the law, they don't understand the obligations and there's very little chance they'll get themselves together to do any of this. It's far easier to chuck a few bottles of piss around and graffiti some buildings.

Nope.

Three and four year olds can tell the difference between male and female. There’s probably evidence somewhere showing that non-verbal one year olds can tell the difference too but I can’t be bothered to waste time googling because all the disingenuous how can you tell the difference between men and women? posters know damn well they can tell the difference too but are too entrenched in admiring the naked emperor’s clothes to climb out of the hole they’ve dug themselves (which must reach to the Earth’s core by now).

Tiresome bolleaux.

keep overwhelming service providers, normalise trans presence and intimidate anyone who pushes back.

Yeah that's exactly what pushed women to the SC and the SCJ coming out. It was based on much shouting of 'it's the law!' and people believing them.

Law has now been clarified. That door is now closed. Service Providers CANNOT now ignore the law as clarified and ignore/refuse women their rights without heavy costs and court action - the exact part that got the TRA movement what it wanted, the threat of court action - and intimidation to force women out of their rights when everyone is now crystal clear about those rights, is just plain bullying and harassment. Services will need to apply their 'we will not tolerate our staff being abused' policy, and shouting at and intimidating women in a manly way is going to lead to the women/service providers calling the police.

There is no other option but to accept that other people have rights too.

I would suggest though making sure to film any individual busy trying some 'intimidation' in women's spaces.

There are some major procedural flaws in that redditor's strategy but obviously I'm not going to point them out on here. Let him find out for himself.

BTW loved the blasé "seek legal advice" 😆

Last weekend, I went to an event where I was introduced to a family member of the host. Now, I happen to have known for some time that this young person is a trans man but I'd never seen them, not even in pictures.

I initially saw the person from some distance about 5'5 (maximum), short, spiky hair. Smooth face (don't think they shave) flat chested (binding/masectomy idk). Masculine coded clothing (especially given the event). But, my first thought upon seeing them and basically guessing who they are was that they obviously look female. You can tell they are female. If not, maybe they look like a boy of around 13 or 14.

Then we were formally introduced. I think i was visibly shocked by their voice. It was so deep. Deeper than any man in my family. Like, the bass was wild. It would be a deep voice for a man.

I wondered if they were putting it on, but they seem to speak like that all the time. Can hormones do that? I don't know.

Anyway, my point is that with this person, if you were more unsure than me about their sex, their voice wouldn't lead you to a correct answer.

Testosterone can make women's voices much deeper, yes.

But there is nothing that works the other way so trans identifying men are always given away by their voice as far as I can see.

Well, I'd be the first to admit that I'm a bit cynical. I thought that the FWS judgement, now over a year old, would lead fairly quickly to the re-establishment of single sex services and spaces. It didn't. Now that the guidance is laid, I hope you're right and the issue can be solved promptly. But any fair assessment would be that TRA obduracy has been impressively effective so far.

I did just that, and found this:
MarieDeGournay · 18/09/2025 14:56
I've seen the same thing said about Michelle Obama - it seems to be a 'thing', partly about insulting the woman, more about dissing the men who married them - if Macron and Obama married men, they are worthless as allegedly heterosexual men...and by extension as politicians and leaders of their countries.
Weird.

which was very much in agreement with the majority of the posts, and 17 posters of them 'liked' [i.e. positive reactions] what I said.

So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by linking to that thread, I don't think it proves what you think it proves.

In those who pass better, what ultimately betrays their sex is this sense of incongruity.

Lots of makeup on a face that's biologically male (jawline/brow). Fake breasts on a male physique. A clearly male voice in the context of all of this.

For trans identifying females they can pass better at first glance sometimes, especially if they are sporting some facial hair, but again it's the incongruity of a slighter physique, smaller hands and feet, the gait.

We are biologically primed to recognise sex. That extends to recognising when things dont quite stack up

I would suggest never to film in womens spaces. Doesn't matter what sex you are, do not do this.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1J7UkXstZw/

Have to be careful of this kind of thing though.

Final paragraph especially

Yes, just do what the Queen says, kick 'em in the balls, I maybe paraphrasing a bit. 😂

@Keeptoiletssafe Men building toilet rooms, centre the toilet in a cubicle. This is not useful for women who need the toilet centred after the sanitary bin is in. We need larger cubicles for having to undress and turn round.

Yes indeed. No one (well, no woman anyway) wants their thigh up against a sanitary bin while sitting on the loo.

Presumably it's also men who allocate the same floor space to men's and women's toilets, resulting in long queues for the ladies while the men just walk in, pee, and come back out again.

Most women aren't in the toilets for a longer time than men because they are constantly menstruating. They spend time grooming themselves that men do not spend. Reapplying lipstick, tidying up hair, etc.

Men will get a criminal record if they are doing an activity in a toilet used by the public, or a section of the public, that is reasonable to assume was a sexual activity. (Section 71, Sexual Offences Act, 2003). Look at the wording:
‘include only sexual activities that a reasonable person would take to be sexual without knowledge of the purpose of the person carrying out the activity’.

This is on them to prove the complainer was being unreasonable, not the provider.

Yes, testosterone can deepen the voice.....and that is one of the long term side effects, even after a woman has stopped taking it; but those who talk about women who are "tall and/or with short hair" being mistaken for men in the women's toilets, the reference is to women who simply have short hair etc. Unless a woman is on testosterone then her voice is going to be identifiably female.

And TBH, even with a depened voice there is usually something recognisably female in the intonation and expression of female voices.

WTF???? I take it you aren't a woman then?

Even if we aren't wrangling kids, dealing with a period or faffing with grooming, we take longer because we need to get more of our clothes out of the way and because we need to wipe 🙄

Signed, a childfree post menopausal woman who hasn't worn makeup for at least a decade

There are actual calculations of how quick men and women are in toilet cubicles for and this informs policy on different numbers of single sex toilets.

If anyone wanted an example of the breathtaking arrogance displayed by many men, it's the belief that, because it's hard to police the law, they will just go on breaking it. Male entitlement really is off the scale.

This is a good example of trying to get equity in toilets:

Network Rail’s recommends that 1 unit
(WC/urinal) be provided per 2500 -
3000 passengers of daily throughput.
Therefore, the recommended method
for calculating provision is as follows:
AM 3 hour peak x 4 = Daily peak Daily
peak / 3000 = T otal units required
The ‘AM 3 hour peak’ is the total number
of passenger entries/exits on a typical
weekday between 07:00 - 09:59.
The average time a person takes to use
the facilities should be taken as 1.5
minutes for women and 0.75 minutes
for men. [2] Therefore, assuming an equal
number of male and female users, there
should be twice as many female units
provided as male units.
To calculate the provision required for
female/male WC’s:
Total units required x 2/3 = Female
Units
Total units required x 1/3 = Male Units
These calculations are only for the
provision of separate-sex facilities;
unisex facilities should be provided in
addition to the calculated ‘total units
required’ (see section 2.4).
Further guidance on calculating
provision is available within BS6465-
4:2010, and BS6465-1:2006.

There are so many things wrong with this post I still haven’t captured them all. But another would be that women do usually wash their hands. Men are less likely to. It’s one reason why unisex toilets are much worse for women than single sex.