EHRC code on single sex spaces comes into force on 5th August 2026

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/788/pdfs/uksi_20260788_en.pdf

Given we know that men who have had such surgery attack women at the same rate as men who don’t , perhaps we can agree the surgery is a red herring.

It may not be for the purpose of making it easier to harm women - although looking like a woman made it easier for at least one transgender person to abduct a young girl - but it certainly doesn’t make them less likely

And going back to court cases, there are even men who claim to be transwomen just for the duration of the time they are in the women’s toilets. In court, they have been tried at men. Neither of them attempted to look any different to a man. One put on a squeaky voice.

A transman in a women’s space is probably ( statistically speaking ) safe where as a transwomen doesn’t feel safe, and knowing men may well not be , safe in a male space

remind me why women are being talked to about this?

are we being asked how we cope with seeing gender diversity ? Are we being asked why we don’t get violent or angry at the sight of such diversity ?

We are not being asked anything that might help men be more accommodating of other men

Drug taking might be more of an issue. Testosterone (whilst also destructive for a female body in those high doses) does make a person more aggressive. But that is also true for other drug users like heroin etc. Drug users is a separate issue really.

Testosterone like other anabolic steroids is classified as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That's because it is a drug of abuse. It's reckoned that about half a million men abuse anabolic steroids. So called "Roid Rage" is a known phenomenon.

I see we have that Williams institute press release again. Maybe this will help clarify the issue with it.

, the press release for the study says:

”Transgender people are over FOUR TIMES more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

It was from this press release.
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
I have a few issues with this press release. I think it has been used widely and extensively since it was released. I believe this document discusses those crime statistics

escholarship.org/content/qt7c3704zg/qt7c3704zg.pdf?t=qqfomk&v=lg

It refers to 369 trans people who identified their sex vs 435 061 people who were not trans identified in a study.

There were 420 in total.
The numbers of members of each cohort
not transgender - 435,061
transgender man (TIF) - 181
transgender woman (TIM) - 188
prefer not to say - 51

The sample size was not mentioned at all in the press release!!
Just being generous and using the full transgender population of this survey, that equals tel:420/435061 420/435061 =0.000965 x 100 = 0.09% is not a population that you could draw many confident conclusions from. And it would be ridiculous to make the comparison on such a small sample size.

Think about this from the point of view that women around the world admit they don’t bother to report their sexual assaults and rapes. Because they have no confidence that they will get justice AND not be vilified in the process.

What % of females actively reporting their attacks vs current trend of not bothering to report would decimate that 420 figure?

And that number cannot be accurately depicted in this point either;

”About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police.”

Sure this 'maybe'. However, I believe the huge number of women telling us they don’t report.
This article is misrepresenting the reality.

Then there is this claim:
”Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

Including! Notice it says ‘violent victimisation including’!

Not ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.”

What was NOT included was a handy breakdown of what constituted the crimes against trans people were. What was the bar for a hate crime being committed for instance? Misogyny?

Does that fit the definition that holds for transphobic hate crimes?

“One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.”

If females were taught how to accurately assess the motivation against them as to whether it constituted a hate crime, or indeed using the very same frames of reference as trans people do but based on sexism, and then they came back and reanswered that same survey, it suspect strongly that it will make that point meaningless? Is misogyny a ‘hate crime’ for instance?

Either way:

Whether or not a male person has been subjected to horrific violence is not a reason for that male person to access female single sex provisions. Many male people are violently attacked by others, but they don't get to access female single sex provisions.

No male people are female and their subjective believe about themselves when it doesn't reflect material reality of their body's sex category should not have be to supported by society particularly in areas where sex matters.

We are not being asked anything that might help men be more accommodating of other men

Exactly. Why are MEN not being told they need to stop being so bigoted and start accepting all men, no matter how they present, in their spaces?

Male on male prejudice and violence is not women’s problem to solve.

How can you recognise a man as a female ? In what way are they female ?

am I female ? Go on explain how I would know

Why should surgery make any difference?

No male can ever experience life as a woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman.

Even when they 'act' like a woman, they are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.

Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is.

How can it be?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, (regardless of if that body produces those gametes) even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It could be because that male person rejects being male based on their conceptualisation of what being male is, so feels that there is no other option but to describe what they believe about themselves as being ‘how a female person interacts with the world around them’, because the rejection of one means that they must be the other.
It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome.
Which is that they will always be a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid.

Men who identify as trans can't use women's spaces whatever they do to their bodies or whatever they think in their minds because they are, and will always be, men. That is what the Supreme Court clarified, but when you think about it, it's perfectly obvious that people can't change sex whatever belief system they follow.

Men have been undergoing genital surgery and getting boob jobs in order to attack women?

Christ alive (pun not intended), I've known of men who entered the seminary and trained as bloody priests in order to access the objects of their sexual desires. The idea that some men, who are probably AGPs anyway, would see gender-related surgery that would allow them to access women's spaces as some sort of hardship is laughable.

At what point, and how, does my son become a woman? He was recognised as male by health care professionals and both parents at birth (it wasn't a difficult thing to do!) and by literally everyone else up to when he started to dress differently. I do not believe that anyone doesn't recognise that he is male now; he's not one of those very masculine looking men, but he doesn't pass for more than a moment. So is he a woman, and if he is, how did he become one, and when did this transformation take place, and what is the evidence for it?

For your information, whatever your opinion on this, he will always remain my son, whatever his self-perception.

I've just spent a couple of days at an event where a significant number of those present were trans identified (over 20%)

the actual sex of every single one was immediately clear when near them.

The Gotchas are bandied about (including the female trans identifiers)
but when standing around waiting for the loo
posture and gestures give everybody's sex away
(including the ones who have taken drugs and had surgery)

Yes, I do get love and support here. Thank you for caring about the parents of people with a transgender identity.

Aparently, the rare one that absolutely is believed to be female 100% of the time and by 100% of female people is supposed to exist and not only exist but to negate all the reasons why male people should be excluded from female single sex provisions and all attempts to exclude them.

It is bonkers thinking

The answer is to treat all transwomen as men. Because, objectively, they are men. And we do treat men, including ones such as myself who identify as "nice" and "safe", as potentially dangerous; I don't object to this, as I have the "lived experience" of being male and therefore have a deep understanding of male sexuality and of typical male aggression, which we have to learn to control.

Trans people are 4 times more likely to be attacked than any cis woman. Thats a stat.

The study in question, in America, found NO difference between rates of reported attacks on men who identified as women and women. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t understand basic statistics or confidence intervals. It included only 16 reported incidents by men who identified as women.

In the UK there are more trans murderers than trans people murdered. And rates of sexual assault by men who identify as women are several times higher than other men - which is predictable given their keenness on ignoring women’s boundaries.

People with a trans identity often describe verbal interactions such as the use of sex-accurate pronouns, or a reminder of which facilities would be more appropriate for them to use, as ‘attack’ and ‘literal violence’. What do these oft-quoted stats report? Genuine violence, or trans-interpretation?

Allies ping pong between the idea that we have to believe all TW from day one, and that all TW go through a meaningful transition.

So when Jack in IT decides he's Jessica, the transition has happened and the name and preferred pronouns are the last stage?

Or the name is the first stage, but when he mentions it, we see the transition? We'll forget he is a man and be happy to share womens space with him.

Does anyone see Suzy Izzard and not still see Eddie Izzard? Or Jonathan/india Willoughby? We know Elliott Page was Ellen, we can still see the women under the cosmetic surgery and drugs.

So what is a meaningful transition? I can see an individual being happy with their own cosmetics changes, but what is a meaningful transition for society? These people want to be treated as if they are the opposite sex by everyone else, but it seems to me the everyone else is doing the heavy lifting. We have to believe them and assume a meaningful transition regardless of what we see and know?

the CPS describes misgendering as potential violence against the person and as domestic violence when a partner does it.

Even some of allies who claim to be highly qualified in study fields relating to people’s gender identity arbitrate who is and isn’t transgender contrary to what we have been told by all those groups advocating for trans people to be fully treated as if they are the sex they claim. Those allies cannot then accept that they are transphobic while accusing others of transphobia.

The incongruity of their own position cannot be accepted by them. They define trans people and effectively talk over the top of them.

That is fucking disgusting. Domestic abuse through coercive control gets the full weight of the law backing up the abuser not the abused.

So when TIMs threaten JK Rowling with rape and decapitation, and publish her address online, this is not ‘potential violence’, but if she refers to them with sex-accurate pronouns, this is ‘potential violence’?

If a man transitions and his wife does not agree that he is now a woman, and maintains that only she is ‘Mummy’ not him, she is the one committing domestic violence, not him?

Mind. Blown.

I was listening to Nick Wallis the other day and he reported successfully stumping people by asking just exactly when does the transition take place, at what precise point does it happen.
Maybe worth bearing in mind.

There really isn’t.

You can recognise them as a purple orange or whatever you like it won’t make them one. Transwomen are male. Being male is a prerequisite.