UK radical feminists; what to do?

[RealRoseCritic]

So there was a question earlier today in one of my groups about TERFs in the UK, why are they so strong there, etc. Let me elaborate on something.

There is something special in mainstream British feminism that is quite different from European feminism(s), but since the English speaking internet concerns mostly the Anglosphere and not Europe, due to us having separate, isolated debates in each country/language, you won't likely ever hear how the UK is substantially different.
It is important to understand the logic of British feminism. Unlike European feminism, which is mostly inclusive and focused on stuff like equal pay, care, safe design of public space and general equity, in the UK it was always about "separate but equal".

British centres of power were always men-only, and many British feminists didn't react the way European women did (aka pushed their way into male spaces, so that these became co-ed spaces), but created their own, separate spaces, which they then aggressively policed the same way British men did with theirs. Add some Victorian prudishness and bioessentialism, that was abandoned in Europe after WWII for obvious reasons, but not in the UK, and voilà, here come British second-wave radfems and the TERFs.

I am from the Czech Republic where I currently live; I lived in Norway, Poland and the Netherlands, I speak fluently multiple European languages and understand few others; I don't say that to brag, but to show my ability to do the comparative analysis, since I study the topic closely.

Out of EU member states, only in Bulgaria and Hungary are trans rights worse than in the UK at the moment, with Hungary being expected to get substantially better soon, and in neither of those two countries are trans people, and especially trans women, as demonised as in the UK.

In all EU member states transphobia comes exclusively from far right places; it is unheard of that liberals or anyone non-far right would say what is absolutely the mainstream in the UK, including Hungary and Bulgaria.
If you are saying the stuff JKR is saying, you are 100 % aligned with far right politics.

We had an attempt by a group of our far right senators to enact a bill proposal similar to what is in the UK, but the proposal was killed within a week before it could have been even voted upon in the Chamber of Deputies. Just for instance.
Scandinavian feminism is focused mostly on fair share of care and chores, German feminism focuses mostly on equal pay, Kita for everyone and the like, Polish feminism is mostly about access to abortion, Czech feminism is mostly about equal pay and safety from domestic violence - I could go on, but all in all, men are welcome to participate and the goal is to create equity for everyone, regardless of their gender. Together.
We don't get British obsession with separate spaces for women, women here are absolutely fine with the way things are, mostly because cultures in the Continent are far less prudish and overall we treat men and women as one people rather than different species.

Moreover, because of civil law rather than common law, we have different approach to legal texts and their interpretations; this makes it different too.
Not just regarding trans rights, but also regarding women's rights, I am often amazed by how much backward the UK is in so many ways compared to the EU (again, including places like Hungary, this needs to be stressed). I often see women in English-speaking debates saying things like "ugh, men" on things that actually concern problems that are specifically British and that stem mostly from both societies' tendency to separate already boys from girls, treating them differently and sexualising women in contexts we don't really see as sexual at all.

We can't really get this across the Channel, because we just don't have the power to do so. For instance Czech debate on feminism is quite isolated; it's interesting, but no more than 15 million people would ever be able to participate in it (CZ/SK) due to the language barrier, the same goes for Scandinavia (17 million), Benelux (28 million), Poland (38 million), or even DACH (95 million). It is nothing compared to half a billion people of the US, UK, CA, AU, NZ and IE that are giving tone to the worldwide debate in English.

So, if you are a British trans woman, you would do yourself a great favour if you moved to mainland Europe. You will be welcomed and cherished (for the most part).

Cultural imperialism happens when powerful nations spread their media, language, and consumer habits, gradually replacing or devaluing local traditions.
British right wing media has vast international reach particularly with their proxies overseas that are all owned by the same people that serve the same political purpose: Right wing dominance. They are all in lockstep. The British media scapegoating & smearing of trans people originated with them to exploit women's rights as a trojan horse for right wing ascendancy. Their continual pressure upon the left to denounce trans women as men isn't because they suddenly 'care' about women's rights but as a political cudgel. In fact the US political campaign of Trump relied on such a strategy.

Acting as if gender critical feminism 'did it all on their own' as a successful grass roots movement is laughably grandiose. It would be barking into the wilderness if the British right hadn't piggy backed its scaremongering internationally. And that's what they did precisely to enforce their own ideological views overseas.

There is some irony in accusing women of imperialism while insisting that a contested theory of gender identity must override local law, ordinary language and women’s own boundaries everywhere.

The difference being gender critical movement is a top down one not a grass roots one like transgenderism. GC popularity relies on fear mongering & as such was manufactured. Trans people aren't a new phenomenon & exist everywhere hence its increasing visibility globally. On the other hand single sex spaces has its roots in patriarchal history that is very particular to nations with a strong patriarchal hold.

men in dresses

Is this inaccurate?

That is a false either/or, and “infinitesimal” is an assertion for which you provide no evidence. Feminists campaign against rape, domestic abuse, workplace harassment, child sexual abuse and coercive control. Defending single-sex spaces is one part of that work, not a substitute for it.

The evidence is that GC movement is a one trick pony totally disinterested in any other forms of female oppression. In fact they effectively get in the way of other advocacy by making their demands the centrepiece of feminism (its all we ever hear about anymore) & diverting all their resources towards it not to mention enabling right wing political parties who aren't exactly feminist friendly other than to useful idiots.

Safeguarding is not reserved for whichever setting produces the largest statistic. We use employment law at work, safeguarding rules in schools, criminal law against assault, and sex-based boundaries where people undress, sleep, are imprisoned, receive intimate care or escape male violence.

But you don't advocate for segregation or 'chaperoning' elsewhere which is the point. If you genuinely believed males to be the serious risk they are to women in loos to the point of segregation being necessary then surely areas more prone to violence should be included?

Stop fudging hypocrite.

Female-only provision does not assume every male will offend. It recognises that sex matters to privacy, dignity, risk and trauma, and that nobody can identify a dangerous man by looking at him. A male person’s gender identity does not remove those considerations.

Yeah? Well apply it everywhere else if you 'can't tell'.

Rights do not become real only when they dominate an election. Most safeguarding and equality questions never decide a general election because voters choose between parties on many issues at once.
Nor does limited electoral salience prove that “nobody cares”. It proves only that the issue has not displaced the economy, housing, health, immigration and every other national concern at the ballot box.

So basically your approach to this 'undetectable' concern is to decide for others what is & isn't an issue…..because you know best? The unqualified self importance is breathtaking.

Calling women “grifters” is not evidence about either their motives or public opinion; it is simply an insult used instead of answering them.

You are either a very bad faith interlocutor or incapable of basic comprehension. I did not refer to all GC women as grifters. Far from it. In my view they are mostly 'true believers'. Who I did refer to as a grifter specifically was Sal Grover. The reason being is this individual has spent the better part of her adult life chasing Hollywood stardom only to return home a failure to reinvent herself as a woman's 'app' entrepreneur. And its only because this next 'venture' fell awry to discrimination law that she 'suddenly' in late middle age became a 'the great last hope' for women's rights…with a ZERO interest prior to this. And if this wasn't enough, she 'fund raises' to dispute her guilt knowing she can't win…(to what end?) given the rock solid laws in Australia as well as relentlessly promotes her 'oppression' of app denial as if exceptions for biological females in law don't exist when she knew they did.

Sorry, perhaps you are just conveniently being naive but this stinks to high heaven of eau de parfum GRIFTER.

You are right about one narrow point: in May 2026 the Full Federal Court upheld that excluding Tickle from Giggle was unlawful gender-identity discrimination, and Giggle’s special-measure argument failed. That tells us how the Australian Sex Discrimination Act currently applies to that service. It does not tell us that Tickle changed sex, or that the law is beyond criticism.

Nobody said it did.

The race analogy is false. Race has no bearing on bodily privacy, reproductive needs, physical performance or the trauma of female victims of male violence. Sex sometimes does—which is exactly why Australian law retains sex-specific exceptions and exemptions.

The point is a networking app doesn't deserve special exemptions…as determined by the supreme court.

Nor does maintaining sex-based toilets require routine inspection of women’s bodies. Rules are routinely enforced when relevant facts become known; imperfect or selective enforcement does not abolish the underlying category.

You are either ignorant or a liar. There have already been many reported cases where individuals have been confronted & harassed for not looking 'female' enough…& that's without state enforced reporting.

How exactly else will sex be determined if not by superficial observation?

Calling women “phallophobic” because they recognise sex is not an argument; it is a sexualised insult used to dismiss female boundaries.

And yet another dishonest 'interpretation' conveniently lacking context. Phobias are irrational fears & the context to this specific irrationality was pretending harms don't qualify exclusions.

And save your faux offense for someone who doesn't already know how routinely offensive gender critical feminism is. They have lost all entitlements to being offended given their behaviour.

Safeguarding does consider potential harm, but risk is not assessed by pretending sex is irrelevant. Sex is one of the most basic population-level risk factors for sexual and violent offending. Rules for intimate spaces cannot depend on officials somehow identifying in advance which individual male will offend, because nobody can reliably do that.

Again, if you believed that you would be demanding it be applied everywhere like for example male carers/teachers in child care or schools where there have
been copious instances of child sex abuse. But it can't & won't be done for the simple reason of proportionality. Competing rights/harms require balancing so so its not a one way street when it comes to harms.

What a woman is is not “in the eye of the beholder”. A woman is an adult human female. That is a material sex class, not a personality type, an outfit or a status bestowed by an observer.

It is according to social usage.

woman
noun
uk
/ˈwʊm.ən/ us
/ˈwʊm.ən/
plural women uk
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/ us
/ˈwɪm.ɪn/
Add to word list
A1 [ C ]
an adult female human being:
She's a really nice woman.
A woman and two men were arrested the day after the explosion.
Women first got the vote in Britain in 1918.
She is Ireland's first woman (= female) president.

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been considered to have a different sex at birth:
Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
transgender woman Marie is a transgender woman (= she was considered to be male at birth).

Individuality does not require everyone else to pretend categories have no boundaries. A male person is free to dress, live and identify as they wish; that does not make him female or entitle him to female-only provision.

No one is asking you to pretend. All the are doing is asking you to respect their right to their own interpretation just as they should for your bio realist subjective view.

And by the way female & woman have two separate meanings.

More study required!

Calling an objective definition “fascist” reverses reality. It is authoritarian to demand that women abandon ordinary language and sex-based boundaries, then smear them for refusing. Female people need a stable word for themselves because their rights, risks and reproductive lives are sex-based.

What's fascist is demanding others subscribe to your SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.

Nobody is denying individuality. We are denying that one person’s self-description rewrites everybody else’s rights.

Um, you realise the irony in that one? Oh wait….

The central question remains untouched: why should a male person’s self-description override female people’s sex-based rights? Nothing in your remaining posts answers it.

On the contrary, its been repeated multiple times. Harms/rights require balancing. There's this thing called 'proportionality' in law that might helpif you can drop the P phobia for a sec.

Its not a right to go into spaces reserved for the opposite sex, it's a want.

Gish Gallop
Key Features

• High Volume: Throwing out dozens of points, half-truths, or false claims all at once.
• Rapid Speed: Speaking so fast that the other person runs out of time to answer everything.
• Low Quality: Using weak, fake, or off-topic ideas because the goal is confusion, not truth. 1, 2, 3]

Funny how women who want to get away from men are told they are "penis-phobic" and making a fuss about nothing, but transwomen who want to get away from men must be coddled and indulged.

Why aren't transwomen told that they're bigoted and unkind if they distrust men, and that they're stereotyping all men as transphobic when it's just some of them, and that they shouldn't remove themselves from the presence of a man until he actually does something to them?

Could it be that everyone knows it's not really about transwomen being unsafe in the gents, but about them getting to invade women's spaces?

I often wonder if some of the fervent Bekinders will ever realize that they are just useful idiots to these demanding men.

You could repeat it a million times and it'll still be an irrelevant point.
Why should a man's self identification override women's sex based rights.?
Women don't need to explain why we don't want males in our spaces, we have rights to, and our rights allow us to say no to sharing our single sex spaces. That's all there is to it, deal with it.
No Debate, No Exceptions.

Men aren't women though.

Harms/rights require balancing.

Establish the harm caused by letting no men into women's facilities, please. Seriously - what is it?

As it happens, I'm distressed not to be a millionaire. Now balance that harm with your right to not have me steal from your bank account. What I'm not just distressed - but very very upset? Does that entitle me to steal from you? How about if I'm very very upset indeed, to the point of suicidality, because I identify as a millionaire but my bank doesn't recognize my lived experience?

Bullshit arguments with long words are still bullshit arguments. Recognizing a truth can never be a harm. That trans identifying men are not women is a truth, and distress caused by saying so, while doubtless real and genuninely felt, could never in a million years be considered reasonable.

I suppose that's the crux of the matter. Gretel thinks that it's reasonable to feel harmed if you're a trans identifying man who is refused service as a woman.

I think it's entirely unreasonable, that the trans identifying man's problem is based in a gross falsehood, it's his alone to deal with, and society should have no truck with it whatsoever.

Every other difference seems to flow from those things.

Busy day in Australia, I see.

Transvestic Fetishism is a paraphilia. A diagnosis of such is checked for when a man presents as a cross dresser or 'trans'.

This idea of 'penis phobia' again.

It's rapey to suggest women must 'set aside' their preference to avoid strange men's penises.

Women have the right to avoid penises if they choose. In fact, consent should be a matter of active choice for women. Otherwise its rapey.

But you know that.

These comments about penis phobia reveal the nasty, rapey intent underlying your posts.

Penis phobia is a weird accusation on a site full of mothers.

As I regularly say a phobia is an intense irrational fear of something.

Women and girls have every right to fear men and their violence that they often pair with their penises.

It isn't a phobia it is a rational response to male behaviour as we do not know where and when a man can strike.

The problem for Gretel and men like him is that British women understand his motivations very well. And we don't care.

We don't care if he calls us old or ugly or bangs on about his willy.

We know that most people understand why women need single sex spaces.

And we also know that every time a man breenges into a women's spaces waving his willy around and flinging insults at women who protest, it only helps illustrate the problems women are talking about.

Men like Gretel and the OP are very helpful for anyone looking into the subject, because they give an object lesson into the issues.

It may amuse these men for a short time; ultimately, it helps women spell out the issues.

@Gretel346

I would read your diatribes in more detail but I simply can't get past the fact that you are writing preaching about rights from a country which has fined a woman a huge amount of money for preventing a male bodied person from joining a group designed to introduce female bodied people to other female bodied people who are sexually attracted to female bodies.

Your country denies the right to be same sex attracted and you approve of that.

Well, the accusation of 'penis phobia' is actually very helpful. Thanks, Gretel.

I think if we could share this idea with the wider world it may help clarify issues.

Maybe politicians need to be asked whether they think women should be forced to overcome their penis phobia in confined spaces with strange men.

I think Shakespeare had it right.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Or, bilge, in other words.