Transgender women will not be prosecuted in the use of women’s single sex facilities

Given women were organised enough to arrange and win all these expensive court cases - why do you think k a national campaign to do just this is beyond them?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal standard. It doesn't apply to civil disputes. It simply has to be "more likely than not".

In reality official documents..

There are no official documents that assist anyone to know what sex someone is. They can't and shouldn't be used.

If the suspected transgender user was biologically female and removed from a female single sex space it will be sex discrimination.

Actually, it wouldn't. If you genuinely believe someone is a man and it's reasonable to do so, it's not discriminatory to treat them as a man.

I'm sorry. I don't know wny I want to get involved in this thread that appears to have been started by a pigeon.

I doubt staff or management will police single sex spaces. Policies for shoplifting for staff is don’t tackle or stop. Staff will not stop transgender women.

Shops don't get sued by the other customers when people steal. Management will face discrimination claims from women for failing to police single sex spaces.

Individuals who persistently flout the rules, knowing full well that they are doing this, can also have action taken against them for sexual harrassment.

If the same man goes in twice to a single sex space where I am, that will be harassment. Because be assured, I’ll tell him he’s not welcome.

Can you explain to me why men dont just obey the law?

You know what? It really doesn't matter, does it? I don't think it's going to affect "our fight" one way or the other. Nor is focusing on minutiae. It was just something I noticed, and I've never once heard a native-born Brit use either term.

I'm just wondering when the OP will provide evidence for his many confident assertions, but, going by his last response, there isn't going to be any forthcoming. I'm definitely not surprised.

You are aware that the word penny begins with a P? The derivation is apparently from "piss", but it's still the wrong fight for this thread.

Read 2 again.

I really expect Reform or the Tories to make it a crime - good news eh. Also…

This is wishful thinking.

No one is saying every trans-identifying male who walks into a women’s toilet will automatically be arrested on the spot. But the claim that they “will not be prosecuted” is simply false.

The Supreme Court clarified that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. A GRC or altered documents do not make a male person female for Equality Act single-sex spaces. So men with trans identities do not have a “standard use” of women’s spaces. They are male people entering spaces set aside for women.

Women’s toilets and changing rooms are not just plumbing. They exist for privacy, dignity, safety, modesty and consent. A woman or girl undressing, washing, changing sanitary protection or using the toilet has not consented to share that intimate space with a male person.

If a male person enters a female-only space and refuses to leave, staff can remove them, ban them and call the police. If there is watching, filming, exposure, intimidation, aggression, repeated behaviour, or deliberate distress caused to women, criminal offences can plainly arise. Voyeurism, exposure, public order and harassment laws do not stop applying because someone identifies as trans.
The immediate legal challenge may often be against the service provider or employer for failing to provide a genuinely single-sex service. That is true. But that does not mean the individual male has immunity. It means providers need to enforce the law properly, and decent people should obey it.

Nor do women need to “prove” someone’s sex before they are allowed to object. Women and girls are allowed boundaries. They are allowed to complain. They are allowed to say they do not consent to male people in female intimate spaces.

So the answer is: yes, trans-identifying males absolutely can be removed, excluded, banned, sued around, reported and, depending on behaviour, prosecuted.

The law does not give males a right to enter women’s spaces because they say the magic words “standard use”. Women’s rights to privacy, dignity, safety and consent matter too.

You are aware that before decimalisation a penny was represented by d?

Piss and its variations - pee, pipi and so on are common across European languages for urination. Try again.

Would you like a job doing marketing for Wowcher? I think there’s probably one coming up soon.

Sorry but I'm UK born and bred, "having a pee" stands for "spend a penny" which was the coin you had to put in the lock to get into a public loo pre decimalisation.

And I've always used poo as well, first recorded use for defaecate in 1744.

It won't help our fight to pick on the wrong things.

The reality is people can be angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives.

Oh really? That sounds like a threat.

But perhaps you are a fan of everyday terrorism.

If a TW uses a female single sex space I suspect you’re right. There will be no thunderbolt or police sirens (more’s the pity).

But the minute they walk across the threshold, that space ceases to be a single sex facility and the owner of that space is breaking the law for providing single sex spaces, and not reasonably upholding them.

All because some men won’t allow women to have privacy or dignity. Even the law won’t prevent them from stomping on boundaries and making women uncomfortable.

Great job championing such lovely empathetic chaps 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 just the types we love having in our enclosed single sex spaces…🙄

I can see what transgender women are going to be like.

You mean you can recognise male entitlement and aggression?

You are not quite correct.

They are not committing a criminal act but they are committing a civil offence of trespass.

If they are asked not to do that and repeatedly continue to do that then they can be charged with one of a number of criminal offences, the most likely being harassment.

Lets make it easy for everyone shall we?

If you've got a dick don't take it into a womens loo or a women's changing area.

Exactly @Wishesandhorses- women’s distress is only meaningful when it benefits their aims.

Not to mention, if it goes to court and the user was proven to be using the space for their sex, I can't see it will achieve anything beyond permission to use that space.

The service provider had a duty to provide and protect a single sex space for the population group of women (half the population) and an accessible mixed sex space in addition. Protecting that space requires having to make these decisions. It's about the group not the individuals. Service providers can't reasonably spend their working lives playing silly games with men determined to get in a room with non consenting women in a state of undress, and to prevent women who need single sex spaces from being able to have access.

Women may end up answering questions or being asked to use the single sex space - the term in law is 'hard cases' I think, individual people affected by a necessary group law, policy and procedure there for the good of the majority. They're not a reason to remove or change that law or policy.

And frankly women have been put in the position for years now of being excluded, harassed and worse by men in their spaces, so this is yet more unpleasantness and stress caused to women by these men, just in another way. Women have been expected to just get on with that, so I don't see why the distress of the women questioned about their sex is now important, when those other women weren't. And when in the activist ideal world, those women's distress and actual exclusion still doesn't matter.

I think a pp was right on the nail the other day. The reason some people come to MN is that it’s far more exciting than the stale echo chambers of Reddit and Bluesky where everyone agrees with their mad worldview. It’s thrilling to come across people who think it’s all nonsense and to plop crap arguments and wind them up. Bonus points if you can tell women that they have zero rights to privacy and dignity and chuck around a few veiled threats. Not that they ever have any genuinely compelling or convincing arguments, any more than the small fringe of TRA Mumsnetters do.

Bluesky and Reddit users having another normal one I see

trust me, you'll get bored before we will