A stranger questioned my gender – but I'm a biological woman
On a recent busy Saturday afternoon at the Royal Festival Hall in London, I was queuing for the women's toilets.
Suddenly, I heard a man shout across the room: 'The men's toilets are over here!'
At first, I ignored it. The bathrooms sit several metres apart on either side of two lifts and there were people everywhere.
But he kept shouting: 'The men's toilets are on this side!' I figured it must be someone making an obnoxious joke to a friend, but then I felt a tap on my shoulder.
I turned around and saw a tall man – maybe in his late 60s – looking down at me. He had walked right into the queue of women, poked me and demanded: 'Do you realise this is the women's toilet?'
I was genuinely taken aback. Before turning around, he couldn't have seen my face. So what was he judging me on? My skin-fade haircut? My black hoodie? Or was it my height? I'm 5'7', which is slightly taller than average but not exactly extraordinary.
There were women in front of and behind me. It was obvious I knew where I was. Not only that, but the side where I was queuing showed signs for the women's bathroom, but also disabled, baby changing and inclusive.
His energy was aggressive. I was shocked. I looked him straight in the face and asked him: 'What sex do you think I am?'
Affronted, he said he didn't know.
So I said: 'Would you like to see my tits?' I then started unzipping my hoodie and he immediately panicked and told me not to.
At that moment, a woman came out of a cubicle – I'm guessing his wife – saw what was happening, grabbed his arm and said with urgency: 'Let's go. Now!'
She rushed him away before all the horrified women around me could react. One woman said she couldn't believe what she just saw, while another said that she was sorry she didn't speak up because she assumed that the man knew me when he touched me. Another even told me to report him.
Stunned, I told the crowd of people gathered around me that I didn't even mind if he thought I was a man, it was the way he went about confronting me. It was clearly an attempt to publicly shame me in front of all those people.
I just stood there trying to figure it out. Even after I left, I couldn't stop thinking about it.
The incident felt even more troubling in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling over the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC's subsequent guidance on trans people's access to public bathrooms.
Was it this ruling that emboldened him to question my appearance?
I know that my look is somewhat masculine, but if he suspected that I was a cis man, wouldn't he check first by looking at me head on? And if he thought I was a trans man, I was in the correct toilet under the current EHRC guidance.
What if I had cancer and was growing my hair back from chemo? Maybe I just like my hair short. Whatever he assumed, it's not his place to judge.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
I'm not offended by being mistaken for a man. I have strong masculine energy. Biologically, I'm a woman – but in spirit, if I had to identify myself (I'd rather not), I would maybe say I'm pangender or non-binary.
What was offensive was his belief that this aggressive behaviour was acceptable.
This is what I believe the recent Supreme Court ruling and EHRC guidance has unleashed. In my view, it has not made it safer for anyone, rather it is fuelling public entitlement and the sort of policing of gender expression I was subjected to.
After posting about this incident on Facebook, I received a tsunami of messages from all kinds of people – women and men, cisgender, trans and gender non-conforming – and even cancer survivors who shared similar experiences.
Many trans women told me they are now scared and no longer feel safe using either toilet. It was heartbreaking to hear.
Whether intended or not, this ruling has pushed trans, non-conforming and intersex people out of gender-specific spaces and given them nowhere to go.
While I received thousands of supportive messages, one woman commented that I was 'diminishing womanhood'. I asked her why but she didn't answer.
I think some people fear that gender is being diluted and, with it, their own sense of identity and place in the world. Gender is a huge part of how many identify themselves.
But maybe it has always been this way and gender diversity is just more visible now.
The fact remains: people who don't fit into traditional gender norms exist. For us, it isn't a fad, it's who we are.
One thing is for sure: people who've gone through gender-affirming surgeries have done so to live authentically, not to threaten anyone in a toilet.
I wish I'd had the chance to properly speak to that man. Shortly after the confrontation, I tried to find him but he was nowhere to be seen. I thought it might help to have a conversation to understand his motivations and perspective.
This is because I believe that only with open dialogue can we start to understand the fears behind the prejudice, even if my initial temptation was to tell him to 'shut the f*** up'. More Trending
But the deeper issues are being deflected. The Supreme Court ruling claimed to protect cisgender women's rights and safety by defining biological sex, but was it ever really about that?
Violent men don't need to pretend to be a woman to cause harm. They do so openly, without disguise.
This ruling inadvertently shifts the burden onto cis and trans women alike to prove they are 'woman enough'. Yet the deeper question remains: why do so many women – both cis and trans – still feel unsafe?
The real problem isn't who's using which bathroom, it's that we live in a society where violence and threats exist in the first place.
Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing James.Besanvalle@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.
MORE: This underrated horror film should be next to get a TV adaption
MORE: 'Humanising trans people is so important right now – our BBC series does that'
MORE: Thousands of men are spitting on women runners — it's happened to me
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New European
3 hours ago
- New European
Trump's war against the law
The earliest source is the newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley's book The American Conflict (1865), which reports Old Hickory's alleged declaration on the basis of a former congressman's recollection. According to Jackson's best biographer, Jon Meacham, the claim was 'historically questionable but philosophically true'. As far as historians can tell, President Andrew Jackson never uttered the threat to the chief justice that is still so frequently attributed to him. In 1832, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Cherokee nation in Worcester v Georgia, Jackson supposedly said: 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.' What Jackson did say to his longtime associate, John Coffee, was: 'The decision of the Supreme Court has felt still-born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate'. All of which matters because the spirit of Jackson is now routinely invoked by the MAGA movement as Donald Trump wages a fast-escalating war with the courts. As far back as 2021, JD Vance said that his advice to his future boss would be to fire all civil servants: 'And when the courts – because you will get taken to court – and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' More recently, on February 9, the vice president posted on X: 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'. In a podcast released on May 21, he warmed to his theme in conversation with Ross Douthat of the New York Times. 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people'. Chief justice John Roberts, Vance continued, was failing in his supervision of the judiciary: 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.' The Democratic Party is in a state of aphasic shock, paralysed by the electoral disaster of November 5. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, are craven in their obedience to Trump. That leaves journalists, a great many of whom continue, valiantly, to speak truth to power; but do so in the face of increasing intimidation and, in some cases, knowing that their proprietors have business exposure outside the media sector that makes them fearful of Trump. So – in practice – the line that stands between the republic and authoritarianism is judicial. At the time of writing, there have been 251 legal challenges to this administration, whose actions have been halted in at least 181 cases. Time and again, Trump and his senior officials have found themselves obstructed by judges from all over the country whose orders have nationwide force. As the solicitor general, D John Sauer, has complained, this means that the government has 'to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere'. Last Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled against the president's tariff regime, finding that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and that 'any interpretation of IEEPA [the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act] that delegates unlimited tariff authority [to the president] is unconstitutional.' Helpfully reposting photos of the three trade court judges, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, claimed on May 29 that 'We are living under a judicial tyranny'. A federal appeals court last week granted a suspension of the order, meaning that, for now, Trump can pursue his deranged tariff strategy, pending further legal action. On Truth Social, he posted that he hoped 'the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.' But will it? On Friday, the highest court in the land gave the administration interim approval to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian programme to grant temporary residency to more than 500,000 migrants facing political turmoil or warfare. This 'humanitarian parole' system is intended to help people from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti. On May 19, the supreme court also gave emergency approval to the government to lift the separate 'Temporary Protected Status' from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. The case is still subject to appeal. But immigration officials may now proceed with mass deportation – perhaps to the Salvadoran gulag. Yet the president and his allies remain furious with the general response of the judiciary to MAGA's egregious 'remigration' plan. On April 7, the supreme court ruled that the government must give 'constitutionally adequate notice' to individuals before their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act; 12 days later, it intervened again, this time in the middle of the night, to block deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the same antiquated legislation. The court has also ruled that the administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old migrant who had been living in Maryland for 13 years, sent back to El Salvador after what the government has admitted was an 'administrative error'. In this case, as in many others, Trump and his team have opted for what the US legal scholars Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon refer to aptly as 'legalistic noncompliance': quibbling over what 'facilitate' means precisely, resorting to pedantry and slow-walking action mandated by the courts. With characteristic indifference to the responsibilities of his office – not to mention the oath that he took – the president himself has become an expert in non-expertise, claiming to have insufficient legal knowledge to offer an opinion on even the most basic juristic questions. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press on May 4 whether citizens and non-citizens alike deserved due process, Trump said, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer.' Pressed by Kristen Welker on the substance of the Fifth Amendment which refers to the rights of the 'person', the president replied: 'It might say that – but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.' In an interview with the Atlantic to mark the first 100 days of his second presidency, Trump insisted that he would abide by any supreme court ruling – but went on to complain that 'we have some judges that are very, very tough. I believe you could have a 100% case – in other words, a case that's not losable – and you will lose violently. Some of these judges are really unfair.' His language was less restrained in a special Memorial Day post on Truth Social in which he attacked 'JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER AND RAPE AGAIN – ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. Which shows that this is a temperamental as well as a constitutional clash. Trump demands instant gratification; the courts exist to deliberate. This incompatibility is now becoming perilous for the republic. Miller, meanwhile, has said that the administration is 'actively looking' at suspending habeas corpus for migrants – the individual's fundamental legal right to challenge his or her detention. In this context, it is worth noting that Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, revealed in a senate committee hearing on May 20 that she completely misunderstood this most basic legal doctrine, defining it as 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Even more revealing was what Miller went on to say: 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' In other words, the government will abide by judges' decisions – as long as they do what the administration wants. Suggested Reading Why do they hate us so much? Jay Elwes In Federalist No 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton, writing as 'Publius', expressed fears that have rarely seemed more pertinent. The judiciary, he said, was by far the weakest of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government (the other two being the executive and the legislature); having 'no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment'. What were once abstract issues for constitutionalists to debate in the lecture hall are now all too practical and menacing. To start with, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, threatened in March to use the congressional 'power of funding' to 'eliminate an entire district court'. Founded in 2019, the Article III Project (A3P) mobilises thousands of phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress to back Trump against the judiciary and is supporting bills introduced by senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and representative Darrell Issa of California to stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders. More alarming is the surge in outright intimidation of the judiciary. Since Trump's return, unexplained pizza deliveries have been made to federal judges and their families – a way of telling them that their enemies know where they live. Deplorably, many have been made under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was murdered in 2020 while protecting his parents from a furious litigant. Judges considered hostile to Trump have also been 'swatted', where a hoax call is made to summon a SWAT team to a particular address – in the hope that heavily armed police officers, following procedure, will inadvertently traumatise whoever is at the location in question. On April 25, Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, was arrested and has now been indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in evading arrest. On Friday, 138 former judges filed a legal argument warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' Pam Bondi, the attorney general, takes a different view. 'The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of,' she said on the day of Dugan's arrest. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today. If you are harbouring a fugitive, we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.' Most shocking of all are the formal discussions among senior judges, revealed by the Wall Street Journal, about forming their own armed security force. At present, the Supreme Court is protected by a special police service which it also oversees; other courts, in contrast, deploy US marshals. Notionally, these officers have a statutory duty to follow the judiciary's instructions. In practice, they work for the Department of Justice, and therefore for Bondi. What, in practice, would happen if the Trump administration flagrantly defied the Supreme Court? Thanks to the court's own landmark ruling last July, the president himself enjoys immunity; he could also pardon officials accused of criminal contempt. Another option is civil contempt, which seeks to enforce future compliance (the person in contempt of this kind is said to 'hold the keys to his own cell'). The advantage here is that the courts can deputise other agencies to enforce their rulings. But which agencies, precisely? Which, in this climate of fear, would be willing to risk retribution from MAGA? Chief Justice Roberts is an 'institutionalist' which means that his highest allegiance is to the preservation of the system that protects the constitution. In the words of his biographer Joan Biskupic, 'he elevated the institutional integrity of the Court above all'. And, to be fair to Roberts, he wrote in his most recent end-of-year report: 'Within the past few years… elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings'. When Trump posted in March that a judge frustrating his deportation plan 'should be IMPEACHED!', the chief justice issued a direct rebuke, declaring that this was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Yet it is precisely this value-system that may deter Roberts from a direct confrontation with the president. For the institutionalist, the prospect of the Supreme Court appearing impotent before an autocratic president is intolerable. Paradoxically, because such a defeat would shatter his worldview, he will postpone the moment of reckoning as long as he possibly can. But he cannot do so indefinitely. High Noon is approaching, and only one of the gunfighters – president or Supreme Court – can prevail. The outcome of that contest depends on a question of global consequence: whether the US remains, as it has long been, a nation of laws; or becomes something altogether more dangerous.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Major development in Samantha Murphy case after mother-of-three disappeared while on a run
A trial date has been set for the alleged murder of Samantha Murphy, a Ballarat mother who disappeared on her morning run. Accused murderer Patrick Orren Stephenson, 23, is set to face a Supreme Court trial on April 8, 2026. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Pre-trial arguments for the prosecution and defence are likely to begin as early as November, 2025. Stephenson has pleaded not guilty to Ms Murphy's alleged murder. Ms Murphy, a mother of three, vanished after going for a run on February 4, 2024, through the Canadian State Forest in regional Victoria. Despite numerous police and volunteer searches, her body has never been found. More to come...
Metro
4 hours ago
- Metro
PC sacked for not showing 'courtesy' to knife-wielding teenager during arrest
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video A police force has been criticised by its own officers for releasing footage of a PC 'behaving aggressively and using unreasonable force' while arresting a teenage boy. PC Lorne Castle was sacked for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing held by Dorset Police following the incident in Bournemouth town centre on January 27, 2024. The two-minute clip released on Tuesday shows the officer tackling the boy to the ground before taking hold of the teenager's face and throat while repeatedly swearing and shouting at him. He can be heard shouting and crying 'what have I done' and 'what did I do' before the officer shouts: 'Stop screaming like a little b****, do you understand that? Shut up.' The teenager also screams 'my f****** neck, get off me, I don't want you on me', while PC Castle is on top of him. The officer later shouts 'Stop resisting or I'm gonna smash you, do you understand?' and says the boy is being arrested on suspicion of assault. In a statement, Dorset Police said they had chosen to release the body-worn video because of the 'high level of public interest in the outcome of the misconduct hearing locally and to challenge misinformation'. But the Dorset Police Federation said in a statement of their own the release 'appears primarily to be an attempt by Dorset Police to manage some of the public criticism the force has received following the decision to dismiss the officer, rather than a genuine desire to properly inform the public'. PC Castle previously admitted misconduct in relation to breaching the standards of professional behaviour relating to authority, respect and courtesy, conduct and use of force but denied gross misconduct, the force added. However, an independent panel found that the breaches amounted to gross misconduct and PC Castle was dismissed without notice. The video formed part of the evidence reviewed by the panel during the three-day hearing which concluded on May 29. A knife was found around four-minutes into PC Castle's interaction with the boy, after he had been put in handcuffs, Dorset Police said. The force added that the officer had been responding to information that the teenager may have been involved in an earlier suspected assault, but at no time was there any suggestion that a knife had been used. No further action was taken against the boy in relation to the reported assaults and he was issued with an out of court disposal for possessing the knife, according to police. Deputy Chief Constable Rachel Farrell said: 'I understand the strength of feeling in this case and it is right to be open and transparent about what the independent panel saw, alongside other evidence and testimony. 'We are sharing body worn video to address concerns about misinformation and to reassure the public that, while tackling crime in Dorset, our officers will continue to be proactive and robust – but by using their powers proportionately and with respect. 'Tackling violence, knife crime and antisocial behaviour are absolutely our priorities. 'At times our officers are required to use force to affect the arrest of suspects, prevent offences and protect the public, their colleagues and themselves. 'I have the utmost respect for the vast majority of officers, who have to use force when making an arrest and do so appropriately and with professionalism, even when they are exposed to risk and violence. 'They do a tough job and when their actions are proportionate, necessary and reasonable they will always be supported.' In a statement Dorset Police Federation criticised Dorset Police's decision to release the footage, saying the force had done so 'without also providing context or balance'. It continued: 'The clip released by Dorset Police fails to show the double-bladed knife which falls from the clothing of the suspect at the end of the arrest and that potentially could have been used to inflict serious harm on the officer, the officers' colleagues or a random member of the public. 'It fails to mention the context that – in an early morning briefing – the officer was warned to be extra cautious due to a mass brawl in the town centre just two nights before, a brawl involving youths with machetes and knives, some of the offenders for which were still outstanding.' The federation added that 'many aspects of the arrest and the force used by the officer were deemed to have been justified, proportionate and reasonable by the independent panel'. More Trending 'Our view is that the showing of selective clips of an officer's body worn video is not a useful or responsible way to properly inform the public about an incident – and only serves to entice the public into making judgments without having the benefit of all the facts. 'This is not fair or just.' The formal written outcome of the hearing will be published at a later date. PC Castle will also be placed on the police barred list, preventing him from holding any future role in policing. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Madeleine McCann prime suspect gives first interview as new searches launched MORE: Three Brits face firing squad for 'smuggling cocaine inside Angel Delight sachets' MORE: First picture of 'loving' teenager who died after motorbike plunged into canal
