Is it legal for a man to use the women's toilet in England? Scotland?

The key word is a proportionate means of a legitimate aim. An individuals mere existence does not meet that legal standard. The legal standard is actually a very high bar to reach and usually applies to refuges , prisons and female sports where a degree of exclusion may be considered reasonable.

The equality act does not give you or anyone else the right to reject a trans woman from female toilets without just cause, ie threatening or inappropriate behaviour.

It does actually, explicitly. Schedule 3, Part 7 (F11), sub sections 26 to 28 set out that persons of one sex can be legally excluded from spaces or services provided to the other sex even if they fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

And not only that, the law also makes it clear that a person without a GRC has no right whatsoever to access services provided on a single-sex basis to members of the opposite sex. A person with a GRC may still be excluded if doing so is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

And privacy as well as dignity are covered in the Equality Act (subsection 27, condition 6, clause b) which allow the exclusion of a person of one sex from opposite sex facilities and services if:

the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

The equality act does not give you or anyone else the right to reject a trans woman from female toilets without just cause, ie threatening or inappropriate behaviour.

To suggest that trans women are inherently dangerous by virtue of an immutable characteristic is unreasonable.

Has anyone suggested that? And what immutable characteristic are you referring to? Sex?

No one has the right to deny access for simply being trans.

No, but people might be denied access because they are male.

To suggest that trans women are inherently dangerous by virtue of an immutable characteristic is unreasonable. This is the very definition of prejudice and transphobia. A law abiding women whether they're trans or not has every right to use public services like toilets. No one has the right to deny access for simply being trans.

By their behaviour, someone acting inappropriately is clearly a threat and should be ejected.

How do you define inappropriately? And why do we have to wait for someone to behave inappropriately before they can be removed? And how do you go about ejecting them?

A trans women, especially a post op, minding their own business should be left alone.

How can you tell the difference between a genuine transwoman and a man cross dressing because of a fetish? And how would you know whether they are 'post op'? You could just guess that they're not, of course, because about 85% of transwomen keep their penises.

By their behaviour, someone acting inappropriately is clearly a threat and should be ejected. A trans women, especially a post op, minding their own business should be left alone.

I'm just saying we shouldn't lump genuine trans people in with predatory males.

Ok, how do we tell one from the other, given Stonewall's definition of trans?

I'm not saying males should be in women's toilets. I'm just saying we shouldn't lump genuine trans people in with predatory males.

They just want to piss and shit in peace like the rest of us.

And take pictures with phones under the door; we're talking about men, right? Well, we were.

It's not about "trans people". It's about male people. And women and girls have rights too. Stop trying to give them away. I'm sorry for what happened to you but other female survivors, like me, would like ALL males to stay out of female single sex spaces.

Laws against males in female toilets wont help. I was sexually assaulted in a ladies toilet by a man dressed as a man, an illegal act, but that didn't stop him. Stop using the threat of male predators as a means to attack trans people. They just want to piss and shit in peace like the rest of us.

Women's safety is more important than men's feeling.

Not sure why people don't get that. Maybe they choose not to, maybe they like to make women feel vulnerable and uncomfortable.

This is why people with penises need to stay out of women's spaces.

Horse, gate, bolted.

Freedom! At last..

Horse, gate, bolted.

Exactly. And conviction rates for rape / sexual assault don’t offer any reassurance that women would get any help or recourse from the law.

So I’ll take your “hopefully” Tracy and say no thanks, I don’t fancy women becoming collateral damage because some people want to be “...free to use a bathroom of their preference according to whatever they identify as.”

If anyone is entering a woman's bathroom with the intention of committing some sort of sexual crime then this of course would be a serious crime which hopefully would be dealt with appropriately.

Horse, gate, bolted.

Hasn't trans-issues been the most discussed topic on this board for over 2 years now?

No, women’s rights have been discussed on this board since it started. It’s very reason for being you might say.

Women will discuss whatever is the biggest prevailing threat to their freedoms and rights.

To be clear - I am not equating trans people as a threat, or threatening. But the ideology does usurp women’s rights in law, and I’d at least like to see the maintenance of the status quo regarding women’s rights, privacy, and safety.

What’s your issue with this?

Tracyracer
No i dont agree with your 3rd paragraph.
We know that some men go to great lengths to abuse wonen and children. Self id just makes it easier for them.

And how does intense discussion of an issue equate to dislike of males who identify as trans?

Transgender ideology and legislation is having one of the biggest impacts on women's rights in decades. And doing so worldwide. That this issue should therefore be a subject of interest on the women's women's rights board is entirely to be expected.

Hasn't trans-issues been the most discussed topic on this board for over 2 years now?

What do you base this rather sweeping statement on? Your own prejudice? I don't see anything here that would allow this conclusion, so do you have anything in support of your position?

You guys really don't like transwomen do you?

Not the ones who are trying to invade our private spaces, no. We generally dislike anyone who wants to compromise our dignity, privacy and safety.

You guys really don't like transwomen do you?

You really don't listen to what people here are saying do you?

You guys really don't like transwomen do you?

A trans-person needs to live as the other sex for a minimum of 2 years, right?

Currently they have to do this in order to be eligible to apply for a GRC. But there is no definition of how they should 'live as the other sex' - it's based on putting their gas bill in their new opposite sex name and things like that. Under self-ID for a GRC all this would disappear anyway.

People who have a GRC are outnumbered (by about 100 to 1) by people who simply identify as the opposite sex. This includes part time cross dressers like Philip Bunce, as well as people who just woke up this morning and decided they were 'trans'. No long and stressful process required.