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

This. You seem to have a very grim view of men with gender identities, OP.

As pp says.

There cannot now be men in single sex women's prisons (yesterday's court case confirmed), hospital wards, refuges, rape crisis groups and services, no strip searches by a man who identifies as a woman, no man in a post advertised as being for women only. Women can set up groups that are for women only and maintain those boundaries legally. Lesbians can have lesbian groups that say no to men who identify as lesbians. Changing rooms cannot be named as women's and permit any males into them. These were the really big harms to women and they're sorted. The prison service and NHS will whinge and drag their feet all the way, but they're well aware the game is up.

The Hampstead pond situation has yet to go to court, but as the Scots govt found yesterday, 'case by case' and 'we know the law but we want to do our own version of it' doesn't fly legally.

Why on earth do you envisage men being aggressive and difficult about using the additional provisions to be made available and instead insist on harming women and overturning women's rights? You seem to be arguing that women should just give up and accept men will do whatever they want. Which is an interesting argument to bring to a women's rights forum, what were you hoping for?

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

Wrong. It's legal to exclude a woman from a women-only space if she looks male (Schedule 3 derogation from the general ban on perceptive sex-discrimination).

Ha! Cross post! Some posters would clearly find that a novel thought.

It won’t be discrimination based on the sex of a female ejected as a result of misidentification as other females will not be excluded.

The service providers don’t have to prove anything. They can just refuse service and eject male people from female services. It would be on the prospective service user to appeal/sue/stage a piss protest and to do that they will need to prove they are female. Which obviously the male people can’t.

It is very telling that you are so keen to cause service providers to be in breach of the law and cause all sorts of trouble and upset to women. It’s exactly the opposite of normal female behaviour. We have a right to single sex spaces and you are opposing that. Try thinking of women as human being with rights and needs for a change. You might surprise yourself.

Luckily, as the law and growing public awareness of this matter is on our side, it’s only a matter of time before this is settled.

Or they could, you know, recognise that women have rights too.

Elon Musk?

Then those men who “get angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives” will be prosecuted for murder and spend a life stretch in a male prison, won’t they?

There is, of course, a single solution to all this. How about trans women simply respect women's privacy? Or show some empathy to women who need single sex spaces and the reasons why? How about they respect the 'no' from women who make it clear they don't consent?
Why can't trans women #BeKind as the phrasing goes?
But of course, the fact that this is seen as both unachievable and unreasonable displays exactly why this is a mens rights movement.
Women are expected to put their needs second to male desires. Same old patriarchal shit.
Respect the 'no', fellas. It's not that complicated.

That's nicer, @ThatsNicer !
😁

Looking at section 71 in the Sexual Offences Act and reading down further (2 is my bold):

71Sexual activity in a public lavatory
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,
(b)he intentionally engages in an activity, and,
(c)the activity is sexual.
(2)For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

You see toilets are such vulnerable places they have a section dedicated to them. The Hansard notes are quite illuminating when this section was being debated. It was said by an MP to be discriminatory towards men as he couldn’t find any records of two women that had ever been arrested having sex in a toilet.

In fact in recent sentencing, judges have forbid men from going in women’s toilets (and sometimes also stipulated unisex toilets) under Sexual Harm Prevention Orders. I have never found an instance where a woman was banned from going into the men’s.

What the law relies on in terms of a man being in the women’s toilets, is if the woman/women occupants think the activity is sexual. And whether any one of those women are reasonable people.

Any man using a toilet cubicle in the women’s toilets has to consider the above. The correct toilets for men are the men’s or universal designs (including the accessible) which are rooms with a toilet, sink and dryer for individual use.
edit: with the correct sex-based pictograms on the doors just in case of confusion.

All the defence needs is one of those cheek swabs that show if the SRY gene is present.

Most TRAs don’t seem to have grasped this.

Indeed.

It is mad as it is essentially arguing that these male people will "be angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives." However, the law "will need fixing" presumably to lawfully let these violent males use female single-sex facilities. How the hell does that support women's rights? I have no idea, but violent men are the very worst men to be let into female single-sex spaces.

As I said, the argument isn't logical. If anything, it is self-defeating.

Indeed. I’ve seen much whinging on Reddit that employers have told them they can’t use the ladies’ toilets or changing rooms, and much pseudo-legal bluster from other posters about it like the OP’s.

There are times when I disbelieve what I read on the Internet. That's down to my ability to have critical thinking and weigh up everything that's been provided regarding the situation.

There was a male doctor who said he was biologically female. IW also states he's a real woman with a real cervix. Both are liars and both are men and yet would be adamant they were biological women.

The service provider doesn't need proof, they can kick out an obvious man in the female facilities.

If the ejected man wants to make something of it he can take the service provider to court but the onus will then be on him to prove he is female or he has no case. His falsified birth certificate will not do because everyone knows birth certificates are no longer reliable proof of sex. I suppose he would need to get medical evidence. Good luck with that.

If the service provider fails to remove the obvious man then female service users could take the service provider to court for violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and / or offensive environment for them, related to their sex.

If the obvious man refused to leave he could be banned from the service altogether. If he kicked off then the police could be called to remove him. If he kicked off numerous times in the same or different service provisions he could be served with whatever they are calling an ASBO these days. If he broke the ASBO he could be charged and prosecuted.

Or he could just use the gents.

No men get prosecuted for using women’s single sex facilities whether “transgender women” or any other men. It’s not a criminal offence or ever has been. HTH.

Space owner customers? Like aliens or the Klangers?

Are you suggesting that transwomen are going to react violently to being told "No"?

Sadly I think you are probably right that some transwomen will, because some angry men have always been violent towards women who do not deliver what said men believe is their due.

But I am hopeful the majority are just confused or chancers, and as society moves away from this moment of sexist madness, they will find other outlets to express whatever emotional needs they currently link to society being accepted as a "woman", whatever it is that that means in their heads.

Which is quite an unusual tactic when I think about it. It just makes me want to keep them out even more.

And that if these men physically attack us or vandalise buildings, like the Bash Back bunch, it’s because they’re so upset.

It will be interesting to see this play out in court rather than non legal Stonewall type advice.

I also think it will be interesting to see play out with HR departments when someone tries this at their place of work. Or in a leisure centre in terms of membership.

So, you are actually arguing that men with trans identities are not decent people and that they will not obey the law.