Woman banned from Council gyms...guess why? Protest 10th Jan at 1 pm see post on pg.7

The debate upthread made me think a bit, about how much easier this would all be if it was covered by criminal law.

The argument is not strong for S158/9 or Schedules 9, 12, and 16, because nobody was ever put in physical danger by decisions made about things like public boards, college fellowships, exceptional admissions to single-sex colleges, and clubs and associations. The civil law is enough.

But the Schedule 3 single-sex exemption exists to mitigate physical danger as much as to enable fairness and privacy. So should service providers be criminally liable, if they provide a service that relies on the exemption, but do not ensure that it is single-sex?

An example would be admitting a transman to an all-male ward, or a transwoman to a domestic violence refuge. ETA or a gym changing room, of course.

Thank you @Datun and @MrsOvertonsWindow for your replies, that meant a lot.

I will hold my hands up and say that there have been times I could have piped down but chose not to. I think a bit less typing and a bit more reading is in order on this kind of thread.

Hope that resolves this

Me too 😁

Women shouldn't have to be devoting time to clearing up misunderstandings, because every bloody bollocking person is ignoring the law.

(Discrimination law, in case that's not clear!!)

I am always concerned about posts that appear to ignore / minimise the safeguarding threats to women and girls from the presence of men in women's single sex spaces.

And I've learnt, from experience, that nine times out of ten, it's correct to be.

The number of occasions where someone is coming across as reasonable, fully on side, and then bit by bit the mask drops, until it comes off altogether. Sometimes rather spectacularly, in a burst of women hating fireworks.

Personally, for me, the most tricky posts are those where I'm really not sure if someone is genuinely unaware, and just asking questions, or being manipulative in order to exercise their agenda.

Because, in the first instance, I really want to help, but in the second, if I think the mask is going to go, I want to expedite it.

*Kimura *made an approving emoji on my 'trigger happy' post above. So I think she gets the balancing act that we all make.

Of course, none of this should be this fricken difficult. But one thing's for sure, it's not the women's fault.

I would prefer if "Entering a toilet of the opposite sex" were not a criminal offence but it could be decriminalised like council parking or littering then we could have overenthusiastic enforcement by outsourced enforcement officers on a bonus for each ticket issued.

If I misunderstood your comments then I am happy to accept that you were commenting about the government's priorities and that your comments above did not reflect your own views and apologise for misinterpreting them..

I am always concerned about posts that appear to ignore / minimise the safeguarding threats to women and girls from the presence of men in women's single sex spaces. As @Datun said upthread, I admit to having limited patience if I perceive such comments. So could be fairly accused of being "trigger happy"

Hope that resolves this. Re your other questions, I'm afraid not going to contribute to derailing someone else's important thread by engaging in interminable to and fro exchanges.

You said:
"..the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces".

What claim are you suggesting I've made? It's a fact that one of those things is considered serious enough for the state to prosecute and the other is not.

That's where I saw your notion of a hierarchy and challenged it with the consequences of your "ideas".

Please explain how our legal system is 'my notion of a hierarchy'? Our legal system is literally a hierarchy of increasingly powerful courts that deal with increasingly serious matters.

And you didn't challenge anything, you suggested that I would or had made the argument that the sexual assault of a child would be lower on a hierarchy of wrongdoing that selling alcohol to a 16 year old. Completely uncalled for.

I think you were a lot clearer in your subsequent posts.

People are instantly very cynical about certain arguments. Even the smidgen of a hint of a whiff of them.

But additionally, you'd be surprised how many posters play the long game, coming across as neutral, or even pro women, and then pages later it's a very different story.

It makes one a bit trigger happy.

It’s obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation.

The issue is that a woman has been penalised for objecting to men in single sex women’s spaces.

It might be that your post came across as minimising the issue, by comparing it to 16-year-olds drinking alcohol.

Except I didn't compare it to sixteen year olds drinking, I asked if breaking this law was going to be enforced in the same way as breaking the laws surrounding selling alcohol to minors.

And identifying that it's not a criminal offence, it's civil offence.

Look back through the thread. I think at least two posters identified it as such before I did, and they did so in response to me asking about it. So no, I did not identify it as such.

And even if I did, it doesn't give someone the right to accuse me of making arguments lessening the severity of child sex offences.

Respectfully, as it appears that a number of posters fail to understand your intentions / beliefs from the words in your numerous posts, it might be worth reviewing how you communicate on here?
Just a thought as I'd be re evaluating if I got such consistent "misunderstandings" in responses to my posts.

If you've read...

"Are we going to impose criminal liability on organizations who don't enforce the new Govt guidance on single-sex spaces?"

No

"I think we should, rather than leaving any legal repercussions as the responsibility of the victims to pursue"

...as being words in the service of allowing men to access women’s single spaces, I genuinely don't know what to say to you.

You said:
"..the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces". You've mentioned it repeatedly?

That's where I saw your notion of a hierarchy and challenged it with the consequences of your "ideas".

It might be that your post came across as minimising the issue, by comparing it to 16-year-olds drinking alcohol.

And identifying that it's not a criminal offence, it's civil offence.

It's a similar argument used by TRAs to minimise the entire problem.

Not to mention governments, the police, the NHS, and countless other organisations, who don't seem to understand it's actually the law, albeit discrimination law.

More lots of words in the service of allowing men to access women’s single spaces, as per usual.

Where's your evidence of this particular hierarchy you cite? We all know that the law has sentencing guidelines in terms of seriousness but to make this particular claim about alcohol seems ... odd?

A poster suggested that organizations would be breaking the law by breaching the new COP on single sex spaces. I asked if they would be treated as 'breaking the law' in the same way that a shop and it's staff who sell alcohol to someone underage would be (criminally) or if it would remain a civil matter.

I've not made any 'claim' about alcohol.

Personally I'd not make an argument that the crimes of trans sex offender Katie Dolatowski (who sexually asasaulted a young girl by going into a woman's toilets is lower on a hierarchy than selling alcohol to a 16 year old ... but you do you I suppose.

I mean I've done no such thing, obviously, and I'm genuinely confused as to how you've managed to reach such a ridiculous and offensive conclusion.

Read my posts back - I have been discussing the legal implications for organizations/service providers who don't comply with the incoming guidance. I wanted to know if the new COP would make them criminally responsible in any way. I was surprised that this doesn't appear to be the case, as it leaves us in the same situation as before - when this law is broken, it's left to the victim to pursue justice. I have suggested that making organizations and their staff criminally responsible would have a bigger impact on offences caused by this issue.

For you to accuse me of arguing that a sexual assault on a child is lower on a hierarchy that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is both completely untrue and extremely offensive.

@StrongestWoman are you in WRN? The Southwark branch is quite active, and we're doing demos at all borough leisure centres. Message me if you like or contact me on Twitter?

The EHRC has a long list of things, including that female-only and male-only changing rooms can legally exist and should be female- or male- only.

No. The inaction by everyone can only be explained if their core principle is: Do not make any man frown.
Otherwise, they would immediately have clarified the female changing rooms are for females only, and please come speak to management if you're not happy going in your sex's changing room and we will of course provide alternative changing space for you.

Lots of women at the centre told me they had complained (after seeing. man in female changing room), but "nothing ever changes" because they perceive the 'T' is elevated above any female.

Someone getting undressed in a changing room is not automatically committing the offence of indecent exposure, even if there are opposite sex people in there.

Voyeurism also has a higher test in law than a man using a women's changing room.

In other words, if a man goes into a women's changing room and only uses it for the purpose of changing, he is not actually committing any criminal offences.

It's very far from clear that staff at a sports centre, for example, would be implicated in any criminal proceedings by way of allowing a man into the women's.

The organisation they work for however may be found liable under the EA per the SC ruling, because if they offer single sex spaces then they cannot encourage or direct members of the opposite sex into the wrong facilities.

Right...it thinks one of them is so severe that it requires the state to step in and punish the offender, while the other it leaves for the victim to prove to a court that they've suffered a loss.